I’m wasting my time with you, but for the benefit of others who are reading this:

Paragraph 8 of #132:

“But, I DO NOT accept any such premise that all the horrible regimes of the world are our responsibility.”

I never made the claim that you do accept such a premise. You didn’t read what I wrote carefully enough to logically make that refutation, but that didn’t stop you, did it? I never wrote that “…all regimes of the world are our reponsibility…” in describing your position. Again, reread what I actually wrote.

Calarato, you haven’t made the case that Iraq posed in imminent threat to the U.S. No one is arguing that Saddam’s regime wasn’t a terrible one and that it isn’t a good thing he’s gone. We were discussing whether our invasion was justified and a good idea.

And for the sake of brevity, I will once more make the case that Iraq at the time of this last invasion was contained, meaning not in occupation of another country. Although I don’t think Germany in the 1930s/40s is a valid comparison, Germany was in occupation of many other countries. Desert Storm was justified because Iraq was an aggressor. This time, we are an aggressor, based on flimsy and, it just so happens, false evidence.

You have real problems with my conclusion that we are now engaging in pre-emptive war and that any action under the aegis of pre-emption is now justified. Shame on me? One of the constant justifications for this war (war on terror and not just with Iraq) is that we must pre-empt anyone we think (because having physical proof certainly isn’t the standard, is it?) might attack us. I don’t agree with that premise.

You leave with the statement that I haven’t read everything you wrote, I misrepresent your arguments, and that I don’t recognize when you write in generalities. Actually, I have done all of those things. I in fact do read all of your responses to my posts, have never taken something you wrote and twisted it (or misread it and then twisted it), and I assume that you (and that we) are writing in generalities.

Calarato, this is a blog. We are posting our thoughts and opinions here, not writing term papers. Case in point: You make an awfully big deal of my statement that the Nazis were swallowing every country in their wake, pointing out that they never actually conquered Russia. Well, you are factually correct. They certainly tried, but they didn’t succeed. Congratulations, you win on what, in the overall scope of what we’re discussing, is a very minor detail and is utterly beside the point. I should have stated “the Nazis attempted to swallow every country in their wake” instead. Ah, well. I assumed that you know that it’s impossible to have a constructive conversation with someone who demands that every possible exception to every statement be accounted for, else that exception will be used against the person who didn’t account for it. I’m surprised you haven’t corrected my spelling and grammar.

Not only are you still evading my basic point - that our reasons for going to war with Germany were, in fact, comparable to (and perhaps slightly weaker than) our reasons for Iraq, making it questionable to support one and not the other - but now you’re accusing me of statements and so-called “misquotes” I never made. Deep breath and retract the fangs, OK?

As before, I will continue to stay away from making any “reading comprehension” cracks about you.

Do you really think the United Nations resolutions that Saddam was ignoring really matter?

Indeed I do. Newsflash: Their existence, plus the actual offenses documented in them, are why we went to war.

Moreover, do you think the United Nations really matters?

Yes.

Are you arguing that we are the U.N.’s teeth?

As an empirical matter: we were, in Iraq’s case. (If, by “we”, you mean the international Coalition that invaded Iraq.)

Re: sanctions, I understood and quoted you accurately. You were asserting that Saddam was more-or-less contained; you implied in #129 - and spelled out, in #139 - that if Saddam clearly were not being “contained”, then you could have felt differently about the war. Newsflash: Saddam wasn’t contained. Kindly drop the layered, weaselly qualifiers.

I have been told again and again by this war’s defenders that we had to stop Saddam… before he became too strong, that he was harboring terrorists and a conduit for terror, and that he was a threat to U.S. security. I don’t claim that you have made those statements…

Oh, but why not? I certainly have! They’re the truth.

Now, here is what else you wrote:

Now, because of 9/11, [under consequent doctrine that led to the Iraq war] we are to [wrongly and unacceptably] take as a premise that any aggressive action done in the name of pre-emption is acceptable.

Again, HardHobbit: To suggest that Bush’s basic position or doctrine is that “any aggressive action done in the name of pre-emption is acceptable”, as you have done, is absolutely dishonest. Shame on you.

…I promise to thoroughly read what you write, not misrepresent your arguments, and recognize when you’re writing in generalities…

But HardHobbit: you have not.

Time to step back, take a deep breath, turn off the radio, and go out and talk to some real people, and try to get reconnected to the real world. Hopefully they havent trained you so well in hating your fellow citizens that you are now impervious to reason. I’ll be rooting for ya.

I know I’m right. Thanks anyway.

I guess we can call that a flame out. When all that is left is a bunch of disconnected delusional paranoid rantings, then I guess it fair to say that you have reached the end of your ability to form a coherent thought. Reaching that kind of a dead end should really give you pause, because there is nothing ahead of you but the cliff.

Time to step back, take a deep breath, turn off the radio, and go out and talk to some real people, and try to get reconnected to the real world. Hopefully they havent trained you so well in hating your fellow citizens that you are now impervious to reason. I’ll be rooting for ya.

Thank you. I know I’m right.

Only if they were Shi’ite, such as the first al-Sadr.

During the period he was under sanctions, Saddam Hussein actively cultivated Islamic fanaticism among Sunnis. He built numerous mosques, imposed stricter Islamic-based law (such as making homosexuality a capital crime), and tried to cloak himself as Islam’s holy warrior.

Why is this important? Two guesses what al-Qaeda’s branch of Islam is.

In para. 1, I state:

“I was mentioning it because it was one of the primary reasons we invaded.”

Here, I mean Iraq, not Germany.

For clarification, you state in #137:

“Meanwhile, we have some leftists (not at all you, HardHobbit - I understand)…”

Let me make it clear that though I had strong misgivings about the war prior to invasion and am now convinced it was a bad move, I AM NOT A LEFTIST. I’m making this clear to Calarato or to anyone who may be reading this post who is not being familiar with my other rants. (”…some leftists…” might imply that while you understand that I am not among these some leftists, I may still be a leftist. I am not among any leftists, some or otherwise.)

I was not attempting a point-by-point refutation, but merely stating why I think the comparison isn’t valid. While you are factually correct in stating that Germany was not successful in all its attempts to conquer, it intended (meaning was actually trying, meaning actually had armaments dedicated) to conquer Russia (and Finland and Britain, etc.). So, though you’re argumentative style is to point to details and cry “You’re wrong, see, see???”, I think my statement serves my purpose well, as it describes what the Nazis were in the process of attempting. If you read what I wrote, you’ll find I haven’t argued that an attempt to take over another country is no premise for our involvement.

You misquote me. I didn’t write “…all the horrible regimes of the world are our responsibility…” While I agree that they aren’t, you accuse me of an argument I didn’t make. Reread what I wrote. OK?

Do you really think the United Nations resolutions that Saddam was ignoring really matter? Moreover, do you think the United Nations really matters? Saddam didn’t. Of course he ignored them. He recognized an impotent organization full of apologists when he saw it, as should we. That he couldn’t have cared less about it isn’t any kind of justification for our invasion because the U.N. has no teeth. Are you arguing that we are the U.N.’s teeth? I do not accept that premise to invade in the slightest, however much I may agree with this or that series of resolutions.

Re. sanctions, I stated that they had mixed results. Yes, the oil-for-food scandal happened and isn’t too surprising, but you seem to suggest that the sanctions had no effect whatsoever. Saddam did what he could to get around them, which isn’t too surprising, which implies they were having at least some effect. His economy was in terrible shape, hospitals were without medicine, food was scarce (hence oil-for-food, and oil-for-other-things), infrastructure was falling apart, and on and on. Now, this was undoubtedly not entirely due to sanctions, but they certainly had some effect, as Saddam’s efforts to get around them (as well as reports from probably sympathetic foreign journalists) demonstrate. I never stated that the sanctions alone contained Saddam. For your benefit, here’s what I wrote:

“However, Iraq at the time of this most recent war was being contained via sanctions (with mixed results) and no-fly zones, U.S. bases nearby and verbal threats.”

Did I write “Sanctions contained Saddam’s regime.”? When I use the word ‘contain’, I don’t include every single exception such as “…except all those times he flew planes into the no-fly zones, trying to shoot ours down…” I assume that you know there are exceptions and that you understand I’m using the term generally, meaning that I’m comparing this state of containment to when Iraq wasn’t contained, meaning free to attack his neighbors. Make sense?

As for your charge of intellectual dishonesty, I have been told again and again by this war’s defenders that we had to stop Saddam (and by extension, Iraq — I assume this means anyone who would take Saddam’s place were he removed) before he became too strong, that he was harboring terrorists and a conduit for terror, and that he was a threat to U.S. security. I don’t claim that you have made those statements, nor do I claim that there isn’t any merit in any of them to varying degrees. However, here is what I wrote:

“Now, because of 9/11, we are to take as a premise that any aggressive action done in the name of pre-emption is acceptable. I don’t agree.”

What I mean is that as long as we can justify an attack (or invasion or occupation or whatever you like) because we are preventing an attack on ourselves, our attack is justified. None of us want 9/11 to happen again, and so we are searching for the possibility of another such attack, as we should. But instead of playing defense and deterrence, we are now playing a kind of offense — a pro-active, pre-emptive strategy that attempts to attack those we think are threatening us. Ever read about the Spanish-American War? Though Iraq is hardly Spain (and I’m not saying the two wars are the same, so don’t misrepresent me), the jingoistic, rah-rah kind of defense of this war strikes me as awfully similar.

You are welcome to attempt to make the case that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S. (to my mind, the only intellectually honest defense for any war in which we wage), but I doubt you’ll be able to convince me. However, if you try, I promise to thoroughly read what you write, not misrepresent your arguments, and recognize when you’re writing in generalities. I do try to be constructive.

P.S. Sorry, almost forgot to anwer your question. You are correct to conclude that I would have supported our entry into WW2 in Europe, just as we fought Iraq when Saddam attacked Kuwait.

HardHobbit, just curious: what would you accept as evidence of such intentions?

Because of the U.N. resolutions, Saddam knew that, if he announced attack plans, it would only get him into trouble. So instead of saying anything, Saddam just quietly “did stuff”:
- Attacking our planes in the no-fly zone.
- Trying to assassinate Bush 41.
- Assisting the first WTC bombing, in 1993.
- Assisting Palestinian terrorism.
- Trying to build long-range missiles (for carrying future WMD), as found by the Duelfer group.
- Continuing his research programs in nuclear, chem and bio weapons.
- Having Baghdad host a large conference each year of Islamist terrorist groups.
- Having Baghdad as “the place to be” when key terrorists need medical care.
- Training some terrorists to hijack airlines at his Salman Pak facility.
- Harboring al Qaeda fighters who fled Afghanistan after their crushing defeat there in October 2001.

Is that really not enough to substitute for open announcement of attack plans?

Meanwhile, we have some leftists (not at all you, HardHobbit - I understand) who can’t even accept openly announced attack plans as sufficient evidence, from Ahmadinejad.

The crucial difference is that Iraq (a state rather than a sect) was largely contained and was not led by a religious fanatic bent on destroying the west.

An empirical claim and, as it happens, largely false.

Saddam was not contained; had made his peace with several Islamist terrorist groups (including arrangements of mutual non-aggression, some training and some financing); was in a process of Islamizing himself and Iraq, more than most liberals want to admit; and, while admittedly not a cleric or theocrat, had a deep hatred and resentment of the West, including a fanatic desire to defeat it and expand his own power.

When discussing the Taliban, I agree with you. What is most tragic about 9/11 (and no, this lesson isn’t lost on me) is that we knew we were targets. Bush #41 was aware of it. Clinton was very aware of it and I believe he even made statements to the effect that we needed to address it. (He now says ‘he tried’, but was rebuffed by members of congress and his own staff. This is perfect fodder for the Giuliani campaign due to the previous two WTC attacks, by the way.) There was simply no excuse to allow the Taliban to fester, particularly when bin Laden and others issued statements (written and recorded) that clearly stated its intentions (not to mention what was already a long record of death, destruction, and financial/arms dealing). I also think this was a wake-up call to domestic security, another of our big, big failings of 9/11.

The crucial difference is that Iraq (a state rather than a sect) was largely contained and was not led by a religious fanatic bent on destroying the west. In fact, Saddam hated religious fanatacism and had such people put to death. We had already defeated Iraq. Does that mean that Iraq was free of terrorists? Of course not. However, our (and coalition) presence in the Gulf region kept him monitored and he knew we were ready to strike if he tried to once again seize a neighbor. (And let me state for the record that I absolutely oppose the ‘No Blood For Oil’ stance of so many war protestors. I think holding much of the world’s oil supply hostage is a perfect premise for attack, as it is in our interest to maintain the free flow of oil.) Saddam also provided something of a pendant to Iran, providing an enemy to a state that truly had/has designs on domination. Cynical, aren’t I?

I agree with you that the nature of this battle is an entirely different one. Not only has travel (not to mention a terrible immigration policy, terrible police policies such as no profiling, etc.) made the prospect of terrorism that much more immediate, but the nature of the weapons themselves has made the threat ever more terrible. Nonetheless, we need to address threats when they are real, meaning when we can establish that certain, specific people intend (not wish or hope or talk about, but intend) to do us harm. There are lots of bad men in the world who, for many reasons, would love to see us destroyed or at least get our come-uppance. Some are French. We need to take each threat on its own merits and carefully weigh whether we have enough evidence to take a military action. I’m not anti-war and I’m certainly aware that pacifism is the easiest position to take when one is safely behind the castle walls.

- Germany’s invasion of Russia was visibly bogging down.
- Germany’s hopes of invading Britain had clearly been dashed, after Germany lost the air Battle of Britain twice, in the summers of 1940 and 1941.

So no, I don’t think you can argue Germany was “marching across [Europe], swallowing every country in its wake” at that point in time. (The point when WE DECIDED to make war on them.)

Also, to state that Saddam was being “contained” by sanctions - when, in fact, he had Russia, France and the UN on his payroll via Oil-for-Food, and was buying all kinds of munitions from them and Germany that he wasn’t supposed to have - simply does not comport with the facts.

Next: That we had “no hard evidence that WMDs had been acquired” is irrelevant to the comparison I was making. If we had “no hard evidence that WMDs had been acquired” by Iraq, then, at the point in time when we made war on Germany, we REALLY had no evidence of Germany having WMD either, as such weapons were not yet in existence (except for mustard gas).

You say,

Our entry into the European theater was one of defense of our allies…

How so? Again, by that point Britain was clearly going to survive - and they were the only yet-unconquered ally that we cared about, or had any sort of obligation to.

Also, for Iraq, how NOT so? Saddam was a proven threat, having initiated war on no less than FOUR neighboring countries, three of them our allies. He subsidized all kinds of terrorism across the Middle East, including Palestinian terrorism which attacked our ally, Israel. Additionally, legally speaking, Gulf War 1 was still in effect because no peace arrangements had ever been reached for it; only cease-fire conditions which Saddam violated flagrantly, thus restoring or continuing war. The U.N. Security Council found that, basically, in the course of 14 resolutions over 12 years which Saddam continued to defy and violate. So: Had the Coalition not invaded to enforce those U.N. resolutions, the U.N. would have been fundamentally ineffective: in other words, our allies would have been unprotected from past, present and future aggression.

There are many terrible regimes in the world, but we cannot right every wrong…

Indeed we can’t. Iraq was one of the few exceptional cases.

Iraq, again, unlike Iran, had previously initiated war on FOUR of its neighbors and had 14 outstanding U.N. resolutions against it, whose legal effect was to suspend Iraq’s sovereignty. None of that applies to Iran. I wonder - could that have made a difference to policymakers?

Where does it stop? Once we accept the premise that a truly horrible regime (and I don’t deny Saddam was one of the worst) is our responsibility, then all military action against all of them is justified.

But, I DO NOT accept any such premise that all the horrible regimes of the world are our responsibility.

I think that (1) international law, and (2) our national interests, have to be closely involved in a way that both justifies and and necessitates
ground invasion. With Iraq, they were. They aren’t with Iran or China - or at least, not yet. The day may come. But, to answer your question: we stop all the time, in the many cases when international law and national interest do not jointly justify and necessitate a ground invasion. OK?

I recall during the Republican National Convention of 2000 Condi Rice saying to the assembled throng to wild cheering that “…we are not the world’s 911!”

But then the 9-11 event happened - and changed a lot of us.

Now, because of 9/11, we are to take as a premise that any aggressive action done in the name of pre-emption is acceptable. I don’t agree.

I don’t either. And HardHobbit, you have just given a totally unfair - in fact, an intellectually dishonest - misrepresentation of Bush’s position, and/or mine.

Now - Notice that I tried to answer your question, “Where does it stop?” But I don’t feel you’ve answered my question. Given that the reasons we had for war on Iraq were actually stronger than the reasons we had for war on Germany: would you have supported the war on Germany? You’ve sort-of implied “yes”, but I daren’t assume - and, your only real point of justification for the German war was something about “defending European allies”, which I was able to refute easily.

anti war anti state pro market

True, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t right any.

Furthermore, HardHobbit, you miss one of the fundamental lessons of 9/11; because we allowed a totalitarian regime to exist and shelter terrorists, we lost three thousand lives.

Back when transoceanic travel ranged from very slow to almost impossible and weapons were limited in destructive power, we had the relative luxury of allowing other countries to stew in their own juices; our natural defenses would keep troublemakers out, and what damage they could do was fairly nonexistent.

However, as it stands, a terrorist could board a plane today and arrive in the United States in a matter of hours, carrying sufficient materials to build a weapon — or worse, the information and capability to build a weapon — able to kill thousands of people if correctly detonated in the right place at the right time.

Condi Rice is correct when she states that we should not be the world’s 911 — that is, they should not rely on us to solve their problems for them. However, when they cannot solve their problems at all, and in the process they allow ideologies and people who hate us to flourish, we are foolish if we do not intervene. That can take several different forms, but one of them will always be, even if it’s only a threat, militarily.

Our entry into the European theater was one of defense of our allies and not an invasion into a single country, forcing it to adopt a form of government of our liking and one we presume everyone in Iraq except the Ba’athists want. Also, I disagree that we were unaware that the Nazis were mass murderers (although the exact extent was not known) and the U.S. is often damned for not entering WW2 sooner for this reason.

There are many terrible regimes in the world, but we cannot right every wrong. Many would argue convincingly that Iran poses a far greater threat than Iraq ever did. When are we going to start the invasion? Human rights violations? Well, let’s invade China. Ignoring U.N. resolutions? Let’s start with Zimbabwe. Murdering its own people? Heck, we could have sent 10,000 troops into Rwanda/Burundi and probably saved at least 100,000 people within a 3-month period. Freeing enslaved people? If their freedom is the primary value, then why the hell are we subsidizing the North Korean regime with money, food shipments, and consumer products? It is estimated that 1,000,000 North Koreans starved to death last year (and don’t start telling me that gassing thousands Kurds is any worse — both are murder and both are the result of tyranny). Let’s just go ahead and invade and, well, if a couple million South Koreans die in the process, we have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. You see where this goes? Where does it stop? Once we accept the premise that a truly horrible regime (and I don’t deny Saddam was one of the worst) is our responsibility, then all military action against all of them is justified.

I recall during the Republican National Convention of 2000 Condi Rice saying to the assembled throng to wild cheering that “…we are not the world’s 911!” I cheered, too, believing it to be true and taking her at her word. Now, because of 9/11, we are to take as a premise that any aggressive action done in the name of pre-emption is acceptable. I don’t agree.