Jumping To Conclusions

> Since the end of the war, dozens of mass
> graves [in Iraq] have been discovered --
> many of them containing hundreds of bodies.
> The United Nations is investigating the killing
> or disappearance of at least 300,000 Iraqis
> believed murdered by Saddam's regime.

Was this, in fact, a reason we overthrew Sadaam?

Or was it because he posed a threat to the United States? That he had ties to al-Qaeda? That he had WMDs? That a war with Iraq was part of the war or terrorism?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember the former (humanitarian nation-building) being the main thrust of the argument. I do, however, remember the latter (threat to the United States. al-Qaeda, WMDs, war on terror, etc.) being the main thrust.

3 million were killed in the Congo over the last five years. Many of their bodies can probably be found in mass graves, rather than in individually marked graves. This fact is certainly reason to organize an intervention on a multilateral basis in order to share costs, risks, and responsibilities. Absent an immediate humanitarian crisis like that in Rwanda, it is certainly not reason for an open-ended American occupation of central Africa.

Partha's right. Besides, the inspections could have continued indefinitely without any major problems, and with no real danger of Saddam running out of victims to thrust...er, shred, um...scramble. Yeah, they were just eggs, for that bodacious Baathist omelet he was preparing.

Boy Saddam really pulled a fast one on the International community. He had everyone convinced that he had WMDs. I bet Saddam (assuming he is still alive) is laughing himself silly about how stupid the world was to actually believe that he had those weapons.

The question isn't whether Saddam had WMDs. If he had a bucket of 15 year old VX, that easily satisfies that condition.

The question is whether what he potentially had posed such a threat to this nation that it would justify immediate war and unilateral occupation. Everyone else in the world, including Australian intelligence said "no." Iraq did not pose such a threat. The only intelligence services which did say Iraq posed such a threat, US and British, are now gradually being shown to have manipulated their data.

So, for whatever cause our soldiers may be sacrificing their lives, they are certainly not dying to make Americans safer.

The difference between Iraq and Congo is that in Iraq we can point to one single guy who is responsible for all those deaths. Congo is a bit more complicated. But if we had the capability to go in to Congo and stop the killing, would you be against that?

The fact that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his people was always *a* reason for going to war. It was always the most compelling reason for me.

And to deny that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. is patently absurd. Even if he did not have the capability to act on that threat, it is absolutely clear that he wanted said capability. I am glad we didn't wait until he had it. Those who fought to remove him from power have indeed made us all safer.

But if we had the capability to go in to Congo and stop the killing, would you be against that?

Well, it depends. If the only solution to the problem in Congo were an open-ended occupation of central Africa with US troops and busting our national treasury, I would so that that's no solution at all. If the choice were a multilateral attempt at peacekeeping, peace-enforcing, and nation-building, in which the military and administrative responsibilities were shared among local nations as well as the wealthier ones, I'd say sure.

And it isn't patently absurd to deny that Iraq was an imminent threat justifying immediate war at the risk of our alliance and our treasury. Everything about Iraq's history demonstrates that he has always been deterrable and deterred from using WMDs. Any number of countries have posed far greater threats to this nation, including China, which actually kidnapped our servicemen, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan -- all of whom actually actively engaged in terrorism and/or proliferation. Anyway, if Iraq were such a threat, then Bush should have campaigned in 2000 on waging war in Iraq, the way that Goldwater campaigned in favor of a bloodier war in Vietnam.

There just was no good argument for war in Iraq, and there never was ... unless Saddam had nuclear weapons. Hmmm. The rest is (revisionist) history.

There just was no good argument for war in Iraq, and there never was ... unless Saddam had nuclear weapons. Hmmm. The rest is (revisionist) history.

Uhh, how about:

1. Removing a murderous dictator.
2. Creating a democracy.
3. Fighting an enemy before they have a capacity to really hurt us.
4. Buying political capital to deal with the other threats to this country.

The outcome of the war is positive. Arguing about the intentions of those who led us to the war is a worthless excercise.

1. Removing a murderous dictator.
2. Creating a democracy.
3. Fighting an enemy before they have a capacity to really hurt us.
4. Buying political capital to deal with the other threats to this country.

This is a non-standard. It justifies any war started at any time against any nation, as long as it isn't a liberal democracy. No provocation is necessary. It essentially means that there are no sovereign rights outside the United States, and the international community won't stand for it and will terefore combine to limit our power and influence. That doesn't make American safer.

This is a non-standard. It justifies any war started at any time against any nation, as long as it isn't a liberal democracy.

I don't mean to use it as a standard. There isn't a rubrick to decide whether or not to go to war. These are 4 reasons in this situation, why going to war was good. Iraq paid a cheap price (in terms of the historical price of liberty) for the opportunity for a real democracy.

It essentially means that there are no sovereign rights outside the United States,
Well there is no world government with any real authority. You can't wish rights into existence.

and the international community won't stand for it and will terefore combine to limit our power and influence. That doesn't make American safer.

The international community will never have our interests in mind. America must act to make America safer.