quote:

---

But we might not have gone in if we were facing a military conflict with friendly nations.

---

Ah, but there's no such thing as a "friendly nation" who stands against the Bush Doctrine. You're with us or with the terrorists.

But seriously, you can't possibly mean that France and Germany were complicit in the US invasion because they didn't put up military opposition. That would have been WWIII.

quote:

---

If you paid attention I don't think I ever really said I cared about our own humanitarian pretenses in Iraq.

---

I thought I was paying attention. I must have misunderstood remarks like: "We enforce a global order"; and "we dole out so much international aid and military police forces every year." And that stuff about how the world rides on our gravy train, and how we just did the world a favor, overthrowing a dictator as we did. All that stuff sounded to me like a portrait of Uncle Sam as two-fisted philanthropist hero. But if you don't care about our humanitarian pretenses, then neither do I, except to say they're absurd.

quote:

---

And as I said before, there was more than just humanitarian reasons to go into Iraq (otherwise, as you say, why not Iran, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, etc. etc.)

---

"More than just humanitarian reasons," for sure, if "more than" is taken to mean "totally other than."

quote:

---

I think I used the phrase "willy-nilly" in respect to military force, not "dole out".

---

No, you used "attack and threaten countries" with respect to "willy-nilly." You used "dole out" with respect to "international aid and military police forces."

So let's say the World Court found a country guilty of exporting terror, by which I mean organized violence to effect some political goal. You would say, it's OK then to go in and bomb that country, to invade and take over?

Not so obviously. In fact, it seems to be right off the old to-do list.

I agree with most of your analysis of Germany's motives in opposing the Iraq war, except a few nits I'll pick here.

quote:

---

Maybe your imagination argument might make a little more sense if there were an agressive dictator in Colombia, who had invaded its neighbors

---

Neighbor, singular, and over ten years ago....

Of course, the UN disagreed that it was being "constantly violated" by Iraq in any manner that warranted invasion. It was in fact the US that violated the UN charter by invading without UNSC approval.

Also, we might have cause to doubt Germany's intent to "fix" Colombia if Germany had been the one to break it in the first place.

We are pretty sure that no one really felt threatened by Iraq at this point.

quote:

---

I might see how an obstructionist attitude would be an extension of ... de facto support...

---

This I agree with. Germany and France had a material interest in their supposedly principled call for diplomacy in Iraq. See, this is the whole reason I had us imagine this scenario, to show that you can see perfectly well the cynical power interests of other countries. So why does your cynicism fail you when looking at Washington? And are our power moves somehow "right" because we did them? Are our violations of the UN Charter and other international agreements somehow better than Iraq's? Less cause for invasion and bombing? Why?

---
What others say about boorite!

Most of what you have typed is just rehashing and pointless nit picking.

In case you missed it, I was lambasting Germany's material interest in Iraq, and would be just so dismissive of American resistance to an invasion of the hypothetical Colombia. I don't understand your "point", or how this makes it, except through the delusion your sheer desire to be right.

I think the security of a nation supercedes back door dealings. What is so hard to understand about that? Why can't you argue against that rather than picking each sentence I write and coming up with some quip about it? You are just analyzing each sentence to death and I think it's for lack of your having any kind of strong argument.

Hey I can do that too:

Ok, so how long ago are war crimes forgivable? Ten years then? So if Germany had just held out for ten years in World War II, all would have been forgiven, ok I see. Thanks for clearing that up.

That's exactly the point, we wouldn't have engaged World War III to oust Saddam. We barely had the politcal will at home for a slam-dunk war of 40 days.

Everyone wants better humanitarian conditions except terrorist groups and dictatorships who draw their support from the disenfranchised. Who is for death and suffering? Who is against the environment? The world is a complex place.

I think you keep bringing up hypotheticals to smoke screen your lack of a strong argument. Who needs the World Court? Why do you need a blanket statement that says "with this set of criteria, such and such must happen" when international politcs cannot function like that? With an attitude like that, nothing would ever get done, and that's what Saddam was counting on as he played games with the UN in an attempt to stall our attack.

How much of your body must be chewed up by an endangered animal before it's legal to shoot it? What estimated number of terrorists would a nation have to have to justify an embargo? And how many for a surgical strike? And how many for an invasion? This is what executive decision are for, to avoid this limbo, this notion of playing by a set of rules our enemies are completely ignoring.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

If the points I picked on were pointless, why did you make them?

quote:

---

In case you missed it, I was lambasting Germany's material interest in Iraq, and would be just so dismissive of American resistance to an invasion of the hypothetical Colombia. I don't understand your "point", or how this makes it, except through the delusion your sheer desire to be right.

---

I didn't miss that. I got it, and I agreed with it, as I wrote. And as I also wrote, the point is to take issue with the idea that we "dole out" military force as if it were some kind of charity-- which you wrote, then forgot you wrote, and now seem to have forgotten you forgot you wrote.

Wait-- whose security was threatened? What are you talking about?

I don't understand. I argue with what you say, and then you say it's not important.

quote:

---

Ok, so how long ago are war crimes forgivable? Ten years then?

---

I didn't say they were forgivable. Just specifying that "had invaded" refers to an event over a decade ago, and that it's not as if Iraq was posing some crisis that necissitated invading them.

That's exactly the point, we wouldn't have engaged World War III to oust Saddam. We barely had the politcal will at home for a slam-dunk war of 40 days.

---

That's exactly your point? That France and Germany should have engaged in this kind of brinkmanship, with WWIII on the table, or else they're complicit in our invasion? That's insane.

quote:

---

Everyone wants better humanitarian conditions except terrorist groups and dictatorships who draw their support from the disenfranchised.

---

Note that we vigorously back some of these dictatorships. Perhaps that is all an accident.

I think you keep bringing up hypotheticals to smoke screen your lack of a strong argument.

---

It is not a hypothetical situation. It really happened. It's becoming hard to avoid the conclusion that gathering the facts on this sort of thing is not something you've spent a whole lot of time on. Which is OK. We're all busy people. So, what do you say? World Court finding: justification enough for invasion and bombing? If not, what constitutes justification?

The US thinks it's a good idea, as long as the US is exempt from its judgements. Where's that cynicism of yours?

Well it's just that I believe in the rule of law. Not really sure where you're coming from on that one.

quote:

---

How much of your body must be chewed up by an endangered animal before it's legal to shoot it? What estimated number of terrorists would a nation have to have to justify an embargo? And how many for a surgical strike? And how many for an invasion? This is what executive decision are for, to avoid this limbo, this notion of playing by a set of rules our enemies are completely ignoring.

---

So you're saying Iraq was an imminent threat, or strongly linked to Al Qaeda, or something, and that's why we invaded? Would you please establish what you're talking about? Because I thought pretty much everyone had abandoned those pretenses.

And question 2, which is not a hypothetical question and so needn't tax your imagination: If a country is chewing up your body, as it were, supporting terrorists who are striking against you, then the valid and right and just thing to do is to bomb that country, invade it and take over-- is that what you're saying?

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of what you have typed is just rehashing and pointless nit picking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the points I picked on were pointless, why did you make them?

---

Your nitpicking is pointless, like that remark you just made.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case you missed it, I was lambasting Germany's material interest in Iraq, and would be just so dismissive of American resistance to an invasion of the hypothetical Colombia. I don't understand your "point", or how this makes it, except through the delusion your sheer desire to be right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't miss that. I got it, and I agreed with it, as I wrote. And as I also wrote, the point is to take issue with the idea that we "dole out" military force as if it were some kind of charity-- which you wrote, then forgot you wrote, and now seem to have forgotten you forgot you wrote.

---

I didn't forget I wrote it. You have inferred, and continue to infer, that I was saying military force is some kind of chairty. I never said that, you have just assUmed it and continue to argue the imaginary point.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the security of a nation supercedes back door dealings. What is so hard to understand about that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait-- whose security was threatened? What are you talking about?

---

Saddam seemed like an obvious threat to me. He was an agressive dictator with untold riches of oil revenues, and a history of using chemical weapons.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why can't you argue against that rather than picking each sentence I write and coming up with some quip about it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand. I argue with what you say, and then you say it's not important.

---

Remarks like "it was ten years ago" are the ones I'm calling not important. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so how long ago are war crimes forgivable? Ten years then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say they were forgivable. Just specifying that "had invaded" refers to an event over a decade ago, and that it's not as if Iraq was posing some crisis that necissitated invading them.

---

No, you were just nitpicking.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But seriously, you can't possibly mean that France and Germany were complicit in the US invasion because they didn't put up military opposition. That would have been WWIII.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly the point, we wouldn't have engaged World War III to oust Saddam. We barely had the politcal will at home for a slam-dunk war of 40 days.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly your point? That France and Germany should have engaged in this kind of brinkmanship, with WWIII on the table, or else they're complicit in our invasion? That's insane.

---

We stood up to the USSR several times in acts of brinkmanship based on very strong beliefs that our way of life was better than what they were offering. If the argument against invading Iraq had any kind of legitimacy, brinkmanship might have had some place. But it didn't. No one wanted to risk World War III to protect Saddam Hussein.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone wants better humanitarian conditions except terrorist groups and dictatorships who draw their support from the disenfranchised.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that we vigorously back some of these dictatorships. Perhaps that is all an accident.

---

So leaving whatever governments we support to anarachy would foster better humanitarian conditions?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's say the World Court found a country guilty of exporting terror, by which I mean organized violence to effect some political goal. You would say, it's OK then to go in and bomb that country, to invade and take over?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you keep bringing up hypotheticals to smoke screen your lack of a strong argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not a hypothetical situation. It really happened. It's becoming hard to avoid the conclusion that gathering the facts on this sort of thing is not something you've spent a whole lot of time on. Which is OK. We're all busy people. So, what do you say? World Court finding: justification enough for invasion and bombing? If not, what constitutes justification?

---

I already responded this argument.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who needs the World Court?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The US thinks it's a good idea, as long as the US is exempt from its judgements. Where's that cynicism of yours?

---

What terrorist groups or actions do we take part in?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you need a blanket statement that says "with this set of criteria, such and such must happen" when international politcs cannot function like that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well it's just that I believe in the rule of law. Not really sure where you're coming from on that one.

---

I'm saying you want our hands tied in a war.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much of your body must be chewed up by an endangered animal before it's legal to shoot it? What estimated number of terrorists would a nation have to have to justify an embargo? And how many for a surgical strike? And how many for an invasion? This is what executive decision are for, to avoid this limbo, this notion of playing by a set of rules our enemies are completely ignoring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you're saying Iraq was an imminent threat, or strongly linked to Al Qaeda, or something, and that's why we invaded? Would you please establish what you're talking about? Because I thought pretty much everyone had abandoned those pretenses.

And question 2, which is not a hypothetical question and so needn't tax your imagination: If a country is chewing up your body, as it were, supporting terrorists who are striking against you, then the valid and right and just thing to do is to bomb that country, invade it and take over-- is that what you're saying?

---

Again you are asking for broad generalization, missing my point in which I mocked your plea for broad generalizations in the field of international politics.

And yes I think Iraq was an imminent threat. Is Al Qaeda the scale by which all threats much be judged? Is that what you are suggesting?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of what you have typed is just rehashing and pointless nit picking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the points I picked on were pointless, why did you make them?

---

Your nitpicking is pointless, like that remark you just made.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In case you missed it, I was lambasting Germany's material interest in Iraq, and would be just so dismissive of American resistance to an invasion of the hypothetical Colombia. I don't understand your "point", or how this makes it, except through the delusion your sheer desire to be right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't miss that. I got it, and I agreed with it, as I wrote. And as I also wrote, the point is to take issue with the idea that we "dole out" military force as if it were some kind of charity-- which you wrote, then forgot you wrote, and now seem to have forgotten you forgot you wrote.

---

I didn't forget I wrote it. You have inferred, and continue to infer, that I was saying military force is some kind of chairty. I never said that, you have just assUmed it and continue to argue the imaginary point.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the security of a nation supercedes back door dealings. What is so hard to understand about that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait-- whose security was threatened? What are you talking about?

---

Saddam seemed like an obvious threat to me. He was an agressive dictator with untold riches of oil revenues, and a history of using chemical weapons.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why can't you argue against that rather than picking each sentence I write and coming up with some quip about it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand. I argue with what you say, and then you say it's not important.

---

Remarks like "it was ten years ago" are the ones I'm calling not important. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so how long ago are war crimes forgivable? Ten years then?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say they were forgivable. Just specifying that "had invaded" refers to an event over a decade ago, and that it's not as if Iraq was posing some crisis that necissitated invading them.

---

No, you were just nitpicking.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But seriously, you can't possibly mean that France and Germany were complicit in the US invasion because they didn't put up military opposition. That would have been WWIII.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly the point, we wouldn't have engaged World War III to oust Saddam. We barely had the politcal will at home for a slam-dunk war of 40 days.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's exactly your point? That France and Germany should have engaged in this kind of brinkmanship, with WWIII on the table, or else they're complicit in our invasion? That's insane.

---

We stood up to the USSR several times in acts of brinkmanship based on very strong beliefs that our way of life was better than what they were offering. If the argument against invading Iraq had any kind of legitimacy, brinkmanship might have had some place. But it didn't. No one wanted to risk World War III to protect Saddam Hussein.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone wants better humanitarian conditions except terrorist groups and dictatorships who draw their support from the disenfranchised.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that we vigorously back some of these dictatorships. Perhaps that is all an accident.

---

So leaving whatever governments we support to anarachy would foster better humanitarian conditions?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's say the World Court found a country guilty of exporting terror, by which I mean organized violence to effect some political goal. You would say, it's OK then to go in and bomb that country, to invade and take over?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you keep bringing up hypotheticals to smoke screen your lack of a strong argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not a hypothetical situation. It really happened. It's becoming hard to avoid the conclusion that gathering the facts on this sort of thing is not something you've spent a whole lot of time on. Which is OK. We're all busy people. So, what do you say? World Court finding: justification enough for invasion and bombing? If not, what constitutes justification?

---

I already responded this argument.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who needs the World Court?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The US thinks it's a good idea, as long as the US is exempt from its judgements. Where's that cynicism of yours?

---

What terrorist groups or actions do we take part in?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you need a blanket statement that says "with this set of criteria, such and such must happen" when international politcs cannot function like that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well it's just that I believe in the rule of law. Not really sure where you're coming from on that one.

---

I'm saying you want our hands tied in a war.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much of your body must be chewed up by an endangered animal before it's legal to shoot it? What estimated number of terrorists would a nation have to have to justify an embargo? And how many for a surgical strike? And how many for an invasion? This is what executive decision are for, to avoid this limbo, this notion of playing by a set of rules our enemies are completely ignoring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you're saying Iraq was an imminent threat, or strongly linked to Al Qaeda, or something, and that's why we invaded? Would you please establish what you're talking about? Because I thought pretty much everyone had abandoned those pretenses.

And question 2, which is not a hypothetical question and so needn't tax your imagination: If a country is chewing up your body, as it were, supporting terrorists who are striking against you, then the valid and right and just thing to do is to bomb that country, invade it and take over-- is that what you're saying?

---

Again you are asking for broad generalization, missing my point in which I mocked your plea for broad generalizations in the field of international politics.

And yes I think Iraq was an imminent threat. Is Al Qaeda the scale by which all threats much be judged? Is that what you are suggesting?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

After the Soviet Union collapses and it will no longer upset a precarious global balance of power to overthrow them. That's when.

---

Wrong. You change sides when the profit motive tells you to do so. Ask Cheney.

And, too bad those recent bombers decided attacking was reasonable given our offense. I wish they didn't agree with you.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Wrong.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Wrong.

And there is a culture of people who thrive on anarchy, they maintain power only when things are in disaray. They are fighting to maintain power, not because of idealogical differences with us.

And even if they did think they were right, does that mean nothing is worth fighting for?

P.S. you are wrong. Wrong. Mister wrongy.

Anything you say from now on = wrong.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

I love you makk you silly guy.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Spankling, I-

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Makk, you're playing up the threat Saddam posed to the region by saying things like he was in the habit of invading his neighbors. Sounds dangerous alright! But the invasion in question was over a decade ago, and no country in the region, not even Iran, which had fought a hideous war with Iraq (whom the US backed-- oh, I guess aggression against one's neighbors isn't so bad after all), felt afraid of Iraq's weak ass. Call it nitpicking, but I think it is an important point. When war is predicated on the awesome threat posed by Iraq to its neighbors, it is an important point. That is why you brought it up. Don't expect statements like that to just sail into the end zone.

When the point is questioned, you accuse the other side of picking nits. As if that's a bad thing. Do you like nits? You like head lice? Your statement is full of nits. It's not a pretty sight.

Enough about process. You say Iraq was an imminent threat to us. Based on what? There are only two lines of reasoning I'm aware of: They had strong ties to al Qaeda; and they had WMD. (The danger of Iraq invading a neighbor by main force, interestingly, was not on the radar screen, which seems an important point.) All "evidence" for either claim has been more or less acknowledged to be bogus, fabricated, or non-existent. For God's sake, the US has stronger ties to al Qaeda than Saddam ever did. By your logic, we should bomb Washington.

There is one and only one circumstance in which the use of lethal force is permissible, and that is when the alternative is loss of life or limb. You and I and Cheney and Rumsfeld all know that was not the case with Iraq.

You ask what terrorist activities the US has been involved in. That's a great question. Why don't you start by having a look at the records of the International Court of Justice in the Hague. (Oh, that's right, who needs them?) Then maybe move on to news reports and declassified CIA documents detailing our role in places like Indonesia, Guatemala, Iran, Chile, and Colombia, to name a few. Oh yeah, there was this mujahadeen group we got started in Afghanistan. Or how about having a look at the Indochina wars, a minor episode of our history in which we destroyed three countries on the other side of the planet. That is, unless these topics fail to interest you.

You complain that Iraq "constantly violated the UN" (whatever that means). Well why not have a look at the record of the all-time champ of Security Council vetos. That would be us. Also the all-time champ of voting down general resolutions all by itself, or with Israel alone. It's worth a look, if the will of the UN means so much to you.

Hawkishness baffles me. Fondness for war baffles me.

---
What others say about boorite!

One more thing: The "generalizations" you mock go under the name "international law." Refusing to abide by "generalizations" about when war is and isn't permissible is called lawless violence and is the hallmark of a rogue state. Of course, you have no difficulty seeing this when it is someone else's state.

---
What others say about boorite!

You keep making assumptions that are false and then pointing the assumptions at me as if that vindicates you somehow.

Being hawkish doesn't mean you are fond of war. Deciding that war is a necessary thing is a hard choice, and it's an ADULT choice. I know it's hard to admit there are bad things going on in the world, and it's easy to ask why everyone can't just be at peace.

And it's our ties to the group that gave birth to Al Qaeda that make Saddam a very appropo point of discussion. We played a lot of high stakes chess during the cold war, and a lot of us treating nations and people like pawns has come around to bite us in the ass. Osama and the mujahadeen were our enforcers in Afghanistan, and after the war was done, we forgot about them. And that came around to hurt us in a horrible way.

In many ways Saddam was our enforcer in the Middle East, and at the very least we used him to a certain degree. And another monster we created came back to haunt us. You seem to place a very light weight on the invasion of a neighboring peaceful country! Oh, it was only ten years ago! What worthless arguments.

Hey boorite, our Iraqi invasion was over like, 3 months ago. Big deal. We have changed. What, do you hold a grudge forever? Bah. That's SO LIKE YOU.

And again: if we were so wrong to go in, why did we not have any resistance? Why did no one fiercely defend Saddam's right to exist? Why was he worth defending with some half-assed whining in the UN?

Why do you keep making assumptions on top of assumptions and them pointing them at me? Can you not handle what I am saying head on? "You say such and such therefore such and such so you must be saying we should bomb Washington. Great. You monster." If you were paying attention you would see that I said said Al Qaeda should have nothing to do with us going into Iraq, that it should be judged by its own merit. I again ask you, what is it that makes you see Al Qaeda as the measuring stick by which all enemies must be judged? Someone must have a tie to Al Qaeda to be a threat? And I don't believe Al Qaeda was even in existence as it has come to be known when we were backing the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, so I don't understand your arguments that we have "ties to Al Qaeda," unless by "ties to" you mean "declared war with".

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

Being hawkish doesn't mean you are fond of war. Deciding that war is a necessary thing is a hard choice, and it's an ADULT choice.

---

Ok, so you're not fond of war. You just prefer it, or support it, or whatever, when necessary. And when is war necessary? So far, you refuse to say, but I'm sure some criteria must come to mind.

quote:

---

And it's our ties to the group that gave birth to Al Qaeda that make Saddam a very appropo point of discussion. We played a lot of high stakes chess during the cold war, and a lot of us treating nations and people like pawns has come around to bite us in the ass. Osama and the mujahadeen were our enforcers in Afghanistan, and after the war was done, we forgot about them. And that came around to hurt us in a horrible way.

---

I agree with this completely.

I also agree with this completely.

Yes, I agree that would be a worthless argument. It wasn't my argument. My argument was that an invasion 12 years ago does not constitute a threat today.

Actually, if someone argued that the US needs to be invaded because it had invaded, say, Panama, I would definitely point out that that was over ten years ago. Not because this fact excuses the US invasion of Panama, but because this fact means the threat is not immediate. Go back in history, and everyone invaded someone. Let's declare war on all of them!

quote:

---

And again: if we were so wrong to go in, why did we not have any resistance? Why did no one fiercely defend Saddam's right to exist? Why was he worth defending with some half-assed whining in the UN?

---

Again, I think your suggestion that France and Germany should have opposed us by force and possibly precipitated WWIII is simply insane. We know that virtually the whole world was against this invasion, even if they didn't show it by playing Chicken with millions of lives.

Well you really are confusing me now. Because at the outset of our discussion of the Iraq war, you said your "hawkish nature" was "because someone has already taken it upon us," with a reference to having one's house burned down. Naturally I assumed you were referring to the 9/11 attacks, which are generally attributed to al Qaeda. I mean, there haven't been any other attacks taken upon us lately, so... If there's something else you could have meant here, I'm sorry I missed it.

It is, as I said, one of the two justifications offered early on by the Bush administration. Glad you don't believe it-- another thing we agree on.

For example, there is this.

BTW, we didn't just back the mujahadeen after the Soviet invasion. We created them before the invasion.

We certainly agree on some significant points: Germany and France have some cynical motives; Saddam was probably not strongly linked to al Qaeda; both Saddam and al Qaeda are examples of our own pit bulls biting us in the ass. I think the only remaining questions we disagree on are:

1. Was Iraq an immediate threat to us, such that invasion was warranted. I say no, and await (as does the world) evidence to the contrary.

2. Should all states (including the US) abide by international law, especially in matters of violence? I say yes. Otherwise there is no "global order" to enforce.

---
What others say about boorite!

Without even finding anything I think the nation was a threat. It's Bush's problem that he was always talking up WMD, but I still think there was enough circumstantial evidence to deem Saddam a threat. He certainly would have struck at the US if he could have gotten away with it, and why give him time to plan his own 9-11. He was hostile and committing a slow-boil genocide agaisnt the Kurds and Shi'ites. He had enourmous revenues and would have had all the time in the world to come up with something to strike us with if we waited for Saddam to decide on what terms he would allow a UN team in his country.

And international laws cease to keep a global order once they become a party to obstructing security and justice instead of advancing it. And as I pointed out early on, I believe it is in fact the U.S. that keeps global order. We must be protected first and foremost for there to be any semblence of a global order and relative peace. I only entered the UN innto my arguments because you were so keen on throwing out all of these international bodies as reasons why we should not act to defend ourselves. There is no mommy to run and tell the United States on except its people.

In terms of me saying someone has "taken war upon us", a Jihad is a call for all Muslims to go to war. The term "Al Qaeda" is fast becoming a simplification easy for us to apply to any strike against us or our allies. The attacks on us started a war any person or group so inclined will continue to bring upon us, whether or not they were trained in Al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps.

And there are other examples of how nations could have stood up to our attack less extreme than France and Germany going to war against us if you need some. What about the surrounding nations allowing us to use their bases? Or fly over their countries? Or use their intelligence?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

What evidence was that? And was it enough to constitute the kind of immediate threat that calls for invasion? Sheez... keep in mind not even Iran was afraid of Iraq at this point.

If he could have gotten away with it. Of course, he knew that striking at the US would mean turning his country into a glass ashtray. He had a lot of years to try something. Even fought two wars with us. You'd think he'd have deployed the bug spray if he was gonna.

This gets into some complicated history, but to make a long story short, the Kurds and Shiites have zero to do with our decision to go to war. There's just no correlation between Kurdish interests, for example, and our policies in Iraq, not to mention Turkey.

What are you talking about? UN teams were already there. And Saddam had already had all the time in the world to strike us.

I don't understand how violence is global order.

Then why did the US sign onto these international laws and rules of conduct? Why does the US invoke them (but only against official enemies)? I don't know what kind of "global order" you're referring to that has no concept of international law. Seems like might makes right to me. You keep referring to "right and wrong," but I don't know what this could possibly mean if we ignore international law and the will of the world's people.

Not really. I think you were the one who suggested it, so I'm content to let it drop.

---
What others say about boorite!

I keep reading that sentence over and over. I think it pretty well sums up the Bush Administration's stance.

---
What others say about boorite!

I answer this in the rest of the paragraph which you pretend to skillfully deconstruct (you know, when you shrug off genocide and the acts of brutal dictatorships as stuff I guess you think people should be ok with)

This all started over us trying to get the inspectors back in. I guess that information hasn't made it to the library where you work since it's not dated material yet. Try reading some newspapers instead of looking up archaic latin phrases.

I can understand how you would need to simplify all of what I have said into that incorrect assumption. Sometimes when issues are complex and difficult, this is the only way to put a face on it one can understand.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And there are other examples of how nations could have stood up to our attack less extreme than France and Germany going to war against us if you need some.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not really. I think you were the one who suggested it, so I'm content to let it drop.

---

Ha! You are content to let it drop after I brought up something that doesn't fit into your agrument. Well? What about the surrounding Muslim nations? Why didn't they stand up to us? Even the most hostile ones to us?

I told you what I thought of this a long time ago. If you don't accept it then don't accept it, and forever wonder why we invaded Iraq when we were so much in the wrong, and there was not a nice neat certificate given to us by the UN saying we were absolutely justified in what we were doing.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

The inspectors were in, and had found nothing at that point. They wanted more time to do their job properly, but the US and the UK stopped them from doing that so that they could start their war.

---
Absorbed directly through the skin.

I answer this in the rest of the paragraph which you pretend to skillfully deconstruct (you know, when you shrug off genocide and the acts of brutal dictatorships as stuff I guess you think people should be ok with)

---

I am rereading the paragraph and still do not see what evidence you think you're talking about. I see: A speculation that Saddam would have attacked the US if he could have; a note of his atrocities against Kurds and Shiites; and a vague contention that he had lots of money. Is this what you mean by evidence? Because that's a weird definition of evidence.

I also do not see where I said genocide was stuff people should be OK with. I think I said it was not a factor in the White House's decision to go to war.

quote:

---

This all started over us trying to get the inspectors back in. I guess that information hasn't made it to the library where you work since it's not dated material yet. Try reading some newspapers instead of looking up archaic latin phrases.

---

Again, inspectors were already in Iraq when the US went to war with them. You are not making sense.

I can understand how you would need to simplify all of what I have said into that incorrect assumption.

---

Not an assumption. I mean, you're referring to warfare, in violation of international law, as enforcing global order. Does not compute. Honest.

quote:

---

Ha! You are content to let it drop after I brought up something that doesn't fit into your agrument. Well? What about the surrounding Muslim nations? Why didn't they stand up to us? Even the most hostile ones to us?

---

What about them? Tell me who did what, and if I have an opinion, I'll tell you what about them. Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm willing to let the "France and Germany WWIII brinkmanship" issue drop because I think the idea is stark raving insane.

quote:

---

I told you what I thought of this a long time ago.

---

("This" referring to a world order without international law.) Well I must have missed it, as I missed all the evidence you say you presented.

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This all started over us trying to get the inspectors back in. I guess that information hasn't made it to the library where you work since it's not dated material yet. Try reading some newspapers instead of looking up archaic latin phrases.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, inspectors were already in Iraq when the US went to war with them. You are not making sense.

---

Saying the UN was in there and doing its job unobstructed would be like saying that the UN is in Iraq NOW and doing its job: it wasn't and isn't. Saddam was giving as little as he could to get what you keep drooling about, a rubber OK stamp from the UN. You keep asking about right and wrong. What is it about the UN that makes them the measuring stick of right and wrong? How many dictatorships are represented in the UN?

quote:

---

I am rereading the paragraph and still do not see what evidence you think you're talking about. I see: A speculation that Saddam would have attacked the US if he could have; a note of his atrocities against Kurds and Shiites; and a vague contention that he had lots of money. Is this what you mean by evidence? Because that's a weird definition of evidence.

I also do not see where I said genocide was stuff people should be OK with. I think I said it was not a factor in the White House's decision to go to war.

---

It's a pattern of behavior I'm talking about. And why it's so hard to get a hold on is why I think the White House went a different route in its public call to war.. Something I don't think I would have done as they are basically going to be hung if they don't dig up any WMD.

quote:

---

Not an assumption. I mean, you're referring to warfare, in violation of international law, as enforcing global order. Does not compute. Honest.

---

It doesn't compute because you are selectively seeing things in black and white. Do you really equate the global status of the United States with say Guatamala? We, and the democracies of the world along with us, have so much to lose. I am saying there is a higher cause then pleasing a bunch of UN stenographers.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I told you what I thought of this a long time ago.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

("This" referring to a world order without international law.) Well I must have missed it, as I missed all the evidence you say you presented.

---

No "this" referring to my assertion that America is part of the global order equation. I'm sorry if this makes other countries feel marginalized and hurts their feelings. You keep ignoring the meat of my argument, which answers almost all of your questions about my point of view.

quote:

---

What about them? Tell me who did what, and if I have an opinion, I'll tell you what about them. Otherwise I don't know what you're talking about.

---

This is in your constant, nit-picky style. Other nations supported us logistically and militarily! No one stood against us, and only made things difficult for us a show to their populous that they would "stand up to us". An example of this would be Turkey not granting passage through their country. Big deal. We had a lot of other support you are apparently ignorant of, or ignoring because it is damaging to your argument.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

Saying the UN was in there and doing its job unobstructed would be like saying that the UN is in Iraq NOW and doing its job: it wasn't and isn't.

---

I didn't say they were unobstructed. You said (twice) we were trying to get them in there, and I said they were in there. Now you're saying they were in there but not unobstructed.

Certainly, the inspectors were making enough headway that they themselves asked for a chance to keep going. But they had to leave because we were set on war. (Second time this happened, too.) So it's really weird to see someone arguing that this was about getting UN inspectors in there.

I didn't say they were the measuring stick of right and wrong. I said the US violated the UN Charter with this war. We have violated international laws and agreements to which we are signatory. Anyway, I think it was you who brought up the UN, something about how Iraq "constantly violated" it, a deeply ironic remark, considering Washington's behavior, which you are defending.

quote:

---

It's a pattern of behavior I'm talking about.

---

Well, you said (twice) that evidence was in that paragraph. Now it's a pattern of behavior. Well, I certainly can't argue that a country did not show a pattern of behavior, because I can't really tell what it means. (Looking in the UN Charter to see where "pattern of behavior"-- oh wait, I forgot the UN Charter doesn't count.)

And rightly so.

quote:

---

Do you really equate the global status of the United States with say Guatamala? We, and the democracies of the world along with us, have so much to lose. I am saying there is a higher cause then pleasing a bunch of UN stenographers.

---

I think I am beginning to understand your attitude toward international law.

quote:

---

Other nations supported us logistically and militarily! No one stood against us, and only made things difficult for us a show to their populous that they would "stand up to us". An example of this would be Turkey not granting passage through their country.

---

Right. Turkey's parliament refused our request to launch attacks from their soil. They didn't grant us overflight until March of this year. Excellent point. Kinda goes against your immediately previous statement that no one stood against us. But an excellent point nonetheless.

Ignoring what? You're just saying "some people did some stuff that is damaging to your argument." Who? What? How is it damaging? What the fuck are you talking about?

---
What others say about boorite!

You keep talking about international justification when I am obviously thumbing my nose at that concept. And about the inspectors, they had been kicked out for years, and were only let back in with their hands tied. They wanted to stay there for purely political reasons, they wanted to legitimize the UN and Hans Blix enjoyed his personal television show.

I said it was circumstantial evidence. I was illustrating some of the circumstances.

And it's what the other nations DIDN'T do that I'm talking about. I brought up Turkey to illustrate a half-assed attempt to look like they were against the war was nothing more than a political feint for their government's own benefit at home.

I am talking about your inability to address my asserstion that the United States is important and worth keeping secure and strong. You just keep running back to arguments about international law. Who enforces those laws? Do you really think the international community will ever come over and arrest President Bush, in any circumstance? Why is that not a viable scenario, boorite, when the international community has arrested and tried other heads of state?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Ok

---
What others say about boorite!

[Click to view comic: 'Evidence']

---
What others say about boorite!