Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

superdave · Apr 17, 2003

http://www.salon.com/opinion/huffington/2003/04/16/antiwar/index.html

Arianna Huffington makes the argument that the swiftness with which Iraq fell proves the doves right. She's saying that they couldn't muster a credible defense of their own nation, so the doves were right in saying that they were never a threat to us.

The thing is, if you think about it, if the defense had been very stout, if the Iraqis had successfully turned this into a bloody urban war, the doves would be right there, too. (I'm using the fact that they didn't use WMDs when we were actually killing the regime as proof they wouldn't have used them preemptively and proactively.)

I want to point out the flaw in her argument, but I can't think of it.

The best I can come up with is saying, hey, we liberated the Iraqi people at a minimal cost in lives. But taking over nations with mean leaders has never been a valid reason for war. Besides, Hussein didn't turn mean on 9/11, but 9/11 is obviously what prompted this war. He was meaner when he was gassing the Kurds, and he was our bestest pal then.

Maybe a hawk can poke a hole in this "head I win, tails you lose" scenario. It seems to me that he was no threat (based on what we know right now), so this war was a bad idea. But if he had a tougher army, he STILL wasn't a threat to us, AND we'd have had hundreds of dead Americans.

Thoguhts?

joseph pakovits · Apr 17, 2003

Originally posted by superdave
I want to point out the flaw in her argument, but I can't think of it.

The best I can come up with is saying, hey, we liberated the Iraqi people at a minimal cost in lives. But taking over nations with mean leaders has never been a valid reason for war. Besides, Hussein didn't turn mean on 9/11, but 9/11 is obviously what prompted this war. He was meaner when he was gassing the Kurds, and he was our bestest pal then.

Maybe a hawk can poke a hole in this "head I win, tails you lose" scenario. It seems to me that he was no threat (based on what we know right now), so this war was a bad idea. But if he had a tougher army, he STILL wasn't a threat to us, AND we'd have had hundreds of dead Americans.

Thoguhts?
Click to expand...

A clever hawk will try to switch the source of the threat to Saddam's supposed mountain of WMDs and claim that we went to war to stop Saddam from giving terrorists these WMDs to use against us.

Of course, that argument still begs the question "Well, he had 12 freaking years in which do precisely that and yet he didn't. Why not, if he was just SO itching to commit terrorism against us that we had to invade Iraq RIGHT NOW rather than wait for the UN inspectors to do their jobs?", but it's not like the hawks have let little question like that stop them from believing what they want to believe.

superdave · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by joseph pakovits
A clever hawk will try to switch the source of the threat to Saddam's supposed mountain of WMDs and claim that we went to war to stop Saddam from giving terrorists these WMDs to use against us.

Click to expand...

I don't see it, joseph. I mean, this posits that Saddam would start a war with us by using WMDs against civilians (through a proxy, of course), when he didn't attack soldiers to save himself in a war we started. That's just irrational 8 ways from Tuesday.

joseph pakovits · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by superdave
I don't see it, joseph. I mean, this posits that Saddam would start a war with us by using WMDs against civilians (through a proxy, of course), when he didn't attack soldiers to save himself in a war we started. That's just irrational 8 ways from Tuesday.
Click to expand...

A clever hawk will claim that Saddam had the WMDs but did not use them because he "lacked a delivery vehicle" or that he was dead in the first bombing and that his generals were just so afraid of the USA they pooped themselves or that they were hoping to make a deal and, either way, therefore refused to use their WMDs against American forces.

Chicago1871 · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by joseph pakovits
Of course, that argument still begs the question "Well, he had 12 freaking years in which do precisely that and yet he didn't. Why not, if he was just SO itching to commit terrorism against us that we had to invade Iraq RIGHT NOW rather than wait for the UN inspectors to do their jobs?"...
Click to expand...

It's kind of funny that you use this particular argument, being that it is usually the one that most hawks will use regarding the innefficiency of the UN weapons inspectors and the UN to disarm Iraq. The argument in question is doves saying, "give the UN time, they will disarm Iraq, there is no reason to go to war." To which a hawk would respond with "the UN has had 12 years to disarm Iraq and they haven't yet, what makes you think they will now?" Usually followed by a moment of silence from the dove as they scour their mind for a way to rationally explain their argument...and from my experience, come up with nothing more than, "yea, this time they will do it."

joseph pakovits · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by Chicago1871
The argument in question is doves saying, "give the UN time, they will disarm Iraq, there is no reason to go to war."
Click to expand...

Actually, the argument of many doves was "Let's give the UN inspectors time to determine IF Saddam had a credible arsenal of WMDs to see if an invasion is even justified along those lines."

To which a hawk would respond with "the UN has had 12 years to disarm Iraq and they haven't yet, what makes you think they will now?"
Click to expand...

That's because the hawks assummed a priori that Saddam did, in fact, have a WMD stockpile capable of posing a realistic threat to the US and Iraq's neighbors.

Not to mention their even more tenuous and unsupported assumption that he was just so itching to hit the USA with these WMDs that we had to go in RIGHT NOW because waiting a month meant our certain demise as a nation. If Saddam had the ability and the boundless desire to flood American cities with biochem weapons and nukes and he had 12 years to do it, why didn't he?

This question is usually met by several minutes of embarrassed silence among the hawks followed by a weak cry from the back of their ranks "But Saddam is... is... just so... EVIL".

True, but that doesn't mean he was dumb enough to commit terrorism against us when he knew it would mean his certain destruction. Sweet jebus, dude, even the CIA said he wouldn't do that unless we cornered him!

Chicago1871 · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by joseph pakovits
Actually, the argument of many doves was "Let's give the UN inspectors time to determine IF Saddam had a credible arsenal of WMDs to see if an invasion is even justified along those lines."

That's because the hawks assummed a priori that Saddam did, in fact, have a WMD stockpile capable of posing a realistic threat to the US and Iraq's neighbors.

Not to mention their even more tenuous and unsupported assumption that he was just so itching to hit the USA with these WMDs that we had to go in RIGHT NOW because waiting a month meant our certain demise as a nation. If Saddam had the ability and the boundless desire to flood American cities with biochem weapons and nukes and he had 12 years to do it, why didn't he?

This question is usually met by several minutes of embarrassed silence among the hawks followed by a weak cry from the back of their ranks "But Saddam is... is... just so... EVIL".

True, but that doesn't mean he was dumb enough to commit terrorism against us when he knew it would mean his certain destruction. Sweet jebus, dude, even the CIA said he wouldn't do that unless we cornered him!
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about WMD. I am refering to the standing resolution from the first Gulf War that Hussien and Iraq must disarm (large scale weapons). This was a huge argument pre-war, and I still hear doves (some here, some in the real world) saying that we should have waited and let the UN disarm Iraq. Of course, the "hawks" still respond with the "they didn't before, but they will now?" question.

I believe the CIA when they say that Hussein wouldn't be stupid enough to be caught supplying weapons to terrorists...of course he wouldn't want to get caught, but this is following the assumption that we're talking about a rational man. I cannot honestly say that he is/was or isn't/wasn't sane. The man and his children have committed horrendous acts that global society tends the shun, but they did it for fun and entertainment. This leads the three Husseins (I think they opened for Sigfriend and Roy in Vegas once) to be labled as sociopaths, and sociopaths sometimes tend not to follow the rules of society.

SoFla Metro · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by Chicago1871
I'm not talking about WMD. I am refering to the standing resolution from the first Gulf War that Hussien and Iraq must disarm (large scale weapons).
Click to expand...

This is a serious question: Have we found anything yet that suggests that Iraq has not disarmed? i.e. Have we actually found anything that is a "large scale weapon"?

DoctorJones24 · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by Chicago1871
I'm not talking about WMD. I am refering to the standing resolution from the first Gulf War that Hussien and Iraq must disarm (large scale weapons).
Click to expand...

What large scale weapons are you referring to? Those missles that occassionally tested out at a few miles over their limit? (The same ones that the Iraqis were quite openly destroying pre-war?)

Those "scuds-that-weren't-scuds" that got shot at us?

Please...maybe I just missed the huge arsenal of the Iraqi military in the past few weeks.

joseph pakovits · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by Chicago1871
I'm not talking about WMD. I am refering to the standing resolution from the first Gulf War that Hussien and Iraq must disarm (large scale weapons). This was a huge argument pre-war, and I still hear doves (some here, some in the real world) saying that we should have waited and let the UN disarm Iraq. Of course, the "hawks" still respond with the "they didn't before, but they will now?" question.
Click to expand...

Ah, "the 1441 gambit". Well, that one has been beaten into the ground and pissed on in many, many threads here. I refer you to Mr. Loney's fine work in dealing with that one.

Still, the hawk position was based on two assumptions:

1) Saddam has a credibly threatening amount of WMDs.

2) Unless we invade imediately, tomorrow New York, Chicago, and Denver will be charred smoking radioactive ruins or biochemically caused uninhabitable wastelands with mutants and stuff right out of Omega Man.

The first has yet to be proven and even the CIA said the second was unrealistic.

I believe the CIA when they say that Hussein wouldn't be stupid enough to be caught supplying weapons to terrorists...of course he wouldn't want to get caught, but this is following the assumption that we're talking about a rational man. I cannot honestly say that he is/was or isn't/wasn't sane. The man and his children have committed horrendous acts that global society tends the shun, but they did it for fun and entertainment. This leads the three Husseins (I think they opened for Sigfriend and Roy in Vegas once) to be labled as sociopaths, and sociopaths sometimes tend not to follow the rules of society.
Click to expand...

Yes, but wildly unrealistic and stupid sociopaths tend not to survive on the geopolitical scene for decades either. The guy was evil, yeah, but a sober assessment of him suggests that he wasn't the extreme threat the hawks made him to be. Unless you're also for removing Bush from power to avoid him pressing the nuke button in a drunken, coke-addled stupor.

Dr Jay · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by joseph pakovits
Still, the hawk position was based on two assumptions:

1) Saddam has a credibly threatening amount of WMDs.

2) Unless we invade imediately, tomorrow New York, Chicago, and Denver will be charred smoking radioactive ruins or biochemically caused uninhabitable wastelands with mutants and stuff right out of Omega Man.

The first has yet to be proven and even the CIA said the second was unrealistic.
Click to expand...

While many "hawks" might argue that these two points are the reason we went to war, I don't believe it for a second. This is my opinion of Bush's and his associates' logic:

1) 9/11 was bad
2) One of the primary (and preventable) reasons that 9/11 occurred was that Al Queda had a country (Afghanistan) that provided direct and critical support to them.

Conclusion: Prevent soveign nations from provided direct support to terrorists organizations and you can prevent another 9/11.

Commentary - The war in Afganistan against the Taliban was fought because of a clear and present danger.

The war in Iraq was fought to make an object lesson for other countries that might consider abetting terrorism as their foreign policy. The message is clear: the US has the power and political will to come get you...and we will, so toe the line.

All this other stuff about preventing Saddam from proliferating WMD, freeing the Iraqi people, and controlling their oil is just extra benefits and justification for the action.

oman · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by Dr Jay
The war in Iraq was fought to make an object lesson for other countries. The message is clear: the US has the power and political will to come get you...and we will, so toe the line.

Click to expand...

Dr. Jay, I have modified your post somewhat. Ultimately, the reason this Administration went to war was a soup of different reasons. Most of them were good reasons, although varying in degrees of truth.

The lesson the world got, based partly on the Adminstrations lack of clarity, is simply a message of power. Which may be appropriate in these times. And which also may have been damaging in these times.

DJPoopypants · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by oman
Dr. Jay, I have modified your post somewhat. Ultimately, the reason this Administration went to war was a soup of different reasons. Most of them were good reasons, although varying in degrees of truth.

The lesson the world got, based partly on the Adminstrations lack of clarity, is simply a message of power. Which may be appropriate in these times. And which also may have been damaging in these times.
Click to expand...

Yeah - and everyone can sleep with a clear conscience because might makes right.

Chicago1871 · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by joseph pakovits

Still, the hawk position was based on two assumptions:

1) Saddam has a credibly threatening amount of WMDs.

2) Unless we invade imediately, tomorrow New York, Chicago, and Denver will be charred smoking radioactive ruins or biochemically caused uninhabitable wastelands with mutants and stuff right out of Omega Man.

The first has yet to be proven and even the CIA said the second was unrealistic.

Yes, but wildly unrealistic and stupid sociopaths tend not to survive on the geopolitical scene for decades either. The guy was evil, yeah, but a sober assessment of him suggests that he wasn't the extreme threat the hawks made him to be. Unless you're also for removing Bush from power to avoid him pressing the nuke button in a drunken, coke-addled stupor.
Click to expand...

While I am not a "all for war and war for all," person, I do feel that Hussein possessing "credibly threatening amounts of WMD" is not the issue. The issue is, does the man possess 1 WMD that he would, at any time, be willing to sell to a terrorist organization? The fear of some is that if Hussein was not deposed that he would, if given the chance, supply a terrorist organization with a WMD or possibly the supplies to make one.
While I personally don't think immediacy in this war was necessary, and was willing to give a months more time for Hussein to empty his closet of skeletons (bad choice of words maybe), I do think that unless evidence was publicy brought to light, that war was inevitable.

I am very much for keeping Bush from pressing the nuke button in a "drunken, coke-addled stupor," but I think all that would take is a combonation lock with something other than his birthdate or address as the combonation.

Chicago1871 · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by DoctorJones24
What large scale weapons are you referring to? Those missles that occassionally tested out at a few miles over their limit? (The same ones that the Iraqis were quite openly destroying pre-war?)

Please...maybe I just missed the huge arsenal of the Iraqi military in the past few weeks.
Click to expand...

Yes, those same weapons they began destroying just a few weeks prior to the war in a last ditch attempt to avert the war...

Mother: Clean your room.
Son:Ok, just let me play a few more minutes.
[A half hour later]
Mother: I thought I told you to clean your room.
Son: I'm going to.
[A half hour later]
Mother: If your room isn't cleaned when I come up again in 30 minutes, no dinner and you will be grounded.
Son: Ok, it'll be done.
[30 Minutes later]
Mother: (comes up to find son still playing) Your room still isn't cleaned. You're grounded and you will get no dinner!
Son: No! Wait! (scrambles to start cleaning up) Look, I am cleaning!

superdave · Apr 17, 2003

You left out the part where thousands of people die.

See, that's the thing. Sure, we can trot out "Leave it to Beaver" analogies, but the bottom line is, alot of the hawks here are very, very quick to ignore the UN to support the UN and as a side effect kill thousands.

joseph pakovits · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by Chicago1871
The issue is, does the man possess 1 WMD that he would, at any time, be willing to sell to a terrorist organization? The fear of some is that if Hussein was not deposed that he would, if given the chance, supply a terrorist organization with a WMD or possibly the supplies to make one.

Click to expand...

The trouble with this argument is that there are several countries that present as great or greater a danger of this and we're not tuching them. If we REALLY cared about terrorism (or liberating people from non-democracies for that matter), we'd be "liberating" the good people of Riyadh from the House of Saud.

BenReilly · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by DJPoopypants
Yeah - and everyone can sleep with a clear conscience because might makes right.
Click to expand...

There is a part of me this is pleased that after 9-11 we show the world that we're capable of kicking some seroius ass. Two towers, two wars.

That's not a justification by any means, but there are advantages to showing the world we're willing and very able to fight back. That being an enemy of the United States is a very dangerous place to be.

spejic · Apr 17, 2003

The "heads I win, tails you lose" effect comes from the fact that we invaded another nation without clear evidence that they were a direct threat to us. Because of that, the coin had to land on edge, in effect. Iraq had to be strong enough to show itself an actual threat without being so strong that the cost of invasion would be greater than any harm Iraq might cause. It is a really impossible trick to achieve, especially as - even with special forces walking around the country, spies in the UN inspection team, tapped communications and aircraft and satellite reconnaissance - it turns out our intelligence of what was going on in Iraq totally stunk.

DJPoopypants · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by BenReilly
There is a part of me this is pleased that after 9-11 we show the world that we're capable of kicking some seroius ass. Two towers, two wars.

That's not a justification by any means, but there are advantages to showing the world we're willing and very able to fight back. That being an enemy of the United States is a very dangerous place to be.
Click to expand...

Oh, I can agree with that. Showing the world our strength is far better than being shown as weak. And as history has shown, there are many times where this is a very good thing to do that stabilizes things.

But I wish people would at least admit that there was nothing moralistic about this war. It was a war of barely provoked aggression by the USA. I'm not claiming that's right, wrong, whatever. But face facts and tell the truth - cuz when you hide behind lies, you lose more moral credibility.

Chicago1871 · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by joseph pakovits
The trouble with this argument is that there are several countries that present as great or greater a danger of this and we're not tuching them. If we REALLY cared about terrorism (or liberating people from non-democracies for that matter), we'd be "liberating" the good people of Riyadh from the House of Saud.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you, there are several issues surrounding the war with Iraq that lead to a very visble gap in policy, but that doesn't change the fact that the Hussein regime was a threat. However, there are, as you pointed out, other regimes that pose just a great a threat if not greater than that of Hussein's.

mannyfreshstunna · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by joseph pakovits
The trouble with this argument is that there are several countries that present as great or greater a danger of this and we're not tuching them. If we REALLY cared about terrorism (or liberating people from non-democracies for that matter), we'd be "liberating" the good people of Riyadh from the House of Saud.
Click to expand...

Yea Joe lets just march into Saudi Arabia! make sure our soldiers are swathed in the Flag as they paint Mecca's holy sites with a laser designator, and watch them go kablooie! I mean, nothing bad happened the last time we had a prescence there....well, i guess i forgot about OBL.

superdave · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by Chicago1871
I completely agree with you, there are several issues surrounding the war with Iraq that lead to a very visble gap in policy, but that doesn't change the fact that the Hussein regime was a threat.
Click to expand...

What kind of threat was he? What could do to us, either directly or indirectly?

joseph pakovits · Apr 17, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by mannyfreshstunna
Yea Joe lets just march into Saudi Arabia! make sure our soldiers are swathed in the Flag as they paint Mecca's holy sites with a laser designator, and watch them go kablooie! I mean, nothing bad happened the last time we had a prescence there....well, i guess i forgot about OBL.
Click to expand...

Well, when we've taken the joint and grabbed al the Saudi loot and bank accounts, then OBL and Al-Q and 80% of the other Muslim extremist groups will be starved of the bling so what would be to fear that isn't ALSO to fear from us grabbing Iraq and leaving the Saudis angry and free to fund more terrorists?

Plus, if they get all uppity, we threaten to blow their holy rock all to hell.

Chicago1871 · Apr 21, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Heads I win, tails you lose--the war in Iraq

Originally posted by superdave
What kind of threat was he? What could do to us, either directly or indirectly?
Click to expand...

Sell a WMD, or parts to create said weapon to a group willing and able to use such a weapon on innocent people.