Bob Herbert Op-Ed IMO, the day the bombs start falling will be a dark day indeed for American history.
I agree with Mike. And I agree with him despite the fact that I have wanted Saddam Hussein out of power since the 80's, when a prof of mine who'd worked in Iraq explained the nature of his regime and described the loss of many friends and colleagues he'd worked with. I argued with my fellow grad students against protesting the first Gulf War for much the same reason and was disappointed when the war ended with him still in power. However, I cannot see how this war is justified either by the present circumstances in Iraq, as a logical piece of an effort to stop terrorism, or as a strategy for establishing stability in the Middle East. Ultimately, I think the effect of this war and the doctrine behind it will be to put the United States in the position of being unable to influence world events except through military force, either by threat or actual application. That's not a sustainable position.
you may be right or you may be dramatically wrong. Bush is taking an enormous gamble - if things go bad - then his presidency is gone - US prestige drops significantly - economy may not recover for some time - etc. if he is right - possible democracy in Iraq - Al Qaeda on the ropes if not knocked out - prelude to a Palestinian homeland - economy gets going again - UN irrelevant ..... certainly a gamble --- but the alternative at this point is to sit on our hands and look like an idiot in terms of Hussein - Sustainable positions of diplomacy have to be backed up by the use of force when diplomacy does not work - that is nothing new.
At this point, I hope so. True enough, but I think the diplomacy surrounding this particular (pending) use of force could hardly have been less competent.
Hello!? This is not like we are attacking the Central African Republic or some other country the world is completely indifferent towards. This is Saddam Hussein's Iraq we are talking here. How can you you not "see how this war is justified." How you fail to recognize the evil in Saddam's Iraq is hard to believe. With eyes and ears closed indeed.
You know, the medulla oblongata's great thing but there are other parts of your brain you ought to start test-driving.
Well you know, if you "want saddam out of power" than why are you claiming there is no justification? You are playing both sides.
I did not say it is a good thing - I am simply saying that if Bush is correct - after the French taking the final stand (unless something dramatic happens today) - that the UN will likely render themselves irrelevant - forget Kosovo and Rwanda - this is much more important - and the Security Council (France to be specific) simply refuses to draw a line in the sand. I don't like it either - but there is precedent with what happened with the League of Nations. UN irrelevance is not good - it is always best to address critical issues multilaterally - but it is likely to be less relevant if Bush is right than if he is wrong.
terrorism and the states that sponsor them rogue states with WMD if Al Qaeda is defanged if Hussein is defanged that certainly will give Bush a major advantage in then resolving the Palestinian homeland problem. Bush will not say publicly they are linked - but the resolution of Al Qaeda and Iraq will clearly go a long way to dealing with the Palestinians. It is all about stability.
substantial funding to Al Qaeda - and people - do you think that the House of Saud has absolute control over their entire country? The House of Saud is just another family based dictatorship - albeit much more benign than Hussein and the Tikritis - but they have not used WMD on their own people, and they certainly are not actively working with AQ to go after the west. The training with AQ was done in the hinterlands of Afghanistan and Iraq and other places - but certainly not 40 km from Mecca. The House of Saud are not squeaky clean - but you cannot equate them with Bin Laden or Hussein or Hezbollah ....
I think Saddam wants this war as much as Bush does if not more. If the reports coming out from defectors are true, it's going to be nasty because Saddam is going to use all those chemical and biological weapons that everyone says he doesn't have. Here's one of them from yesterday's Boston Globe: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F9D59328B52A5D4&p_docnum=14
You had two scenarios in the post I was replying to, one which seemed to be a list of bad things, the other a list of good things. You wrote: "Bush is taking an enormous gamble - if things go bad - then his presidency is gone - US prestige drops significantly - economy may not recover for some time - etc. if he is right - possible democracy in Iraq - Al Qaeda on the ropes if not knocked out - prelude to a Palestinian homeland - economy gets going again - UN irrelevant ....." The first sounds like a list of bad things. The second sounds like a list of good things, and I when I see UN irrelevant at the end of the list, it looks like you're considering that another good thing. BTW, Al Qaeda is not connected to Iraq no matter how many times people want it to be true. I wish it was true myself.
I know its hard to believe in a AQ/Iraq connection seeing as how Saddam has been brutally secular but when he was backed into a corner, there is no possibility of a AQ/Iraq alliance? They both have common enemies in the US. So i believe Saddam would tolerate some religios zealots in order to strike us. Plus the Zaqawhi connection is hard to disprove.
good call on the grammar - UN irrelevant might be a byproduct - but I don't view it as a good thing - a good thing would be for France to do a 180 today - but I view it as unlikely. We can honestly disagree about Iraq and AQ - reasaonble people can disagree - we clearly have collected satellite imagery of terrorists training with knives in the desert using aircraft fuselage bodies. You can draw conclusions from that. One way or the other - we are going to be on the receiving end of chem weapons if we go in. I predict we are going to reveal more intel sources and methods once we get into Bagdad - at that point - those sources and methods will be getting out.
Ain't life going to be wonderful as an American after the war. I was hoping to go to Turkey over the summer, but... This is going to spark resentment against us for a very long time. If it were for some grand purpose I might understand it, but does anyone really put a penny's worth of faith in Bush's peace plan and desire to help out the region after the war (hint: how much $$ is the US dedicating to rebuild Afghanistan next year?)? Piss on GWB.
Satellite imagery Kurdish intelligence Iraqi defectors more will follow I would think ..... let me ask you this: Saddam says no connection to AQ. Saddam says he has no WMD or long range missiles ...... We know for a fact that he has WMD .... and long range missiles to deliver them .... So who do you believe more on this - Bush II or Hussein?
The first list are the things that would happen if Bush were wrong...If Bush is wrong, the UN will not be considered irrevelant. Therefore, its listed with the things that would happen of Bush is right. I didn't realize this was irrefutable.
I was using the word saudi as follows: Saudi - n : a native or inhabitant of Saudi Arabia, not in reference to the royal family. Aren't most of AQ's funds coming from Saudi citizens and aren't most of AQ's leaders Saudi? I'm asking because I'm not following your logic that a successful invasion of Iraq would cripple AQ.
btousley, give us a link. This topic came up last week. It was a lie then, it's a lie now. The only AQ operations in Iraq are in the Kurdish controlled areas. There's a link from me from the NYT somewhere on this board. As for Bush and Hussein...I trust them both equally. But I'd rather be lied to by Hussein...his lies are alot funnier, like that balsa wood drone.