Didn't read all of it but I saw a lot of "Moral reasons.... From a Moral Point of view etc etc" That's not what the war was sold to us as Bucko.

There's lot's more dictators that do just as bad or worse things to their people than Saddam. I think W ran last time on not being the worlds police department.

There are correct ways to go after somebody for "Moral reason's" a la the Balkans or even Saddam right after the first gulf war when the Iraqi's tried to revolt.

While most of us agree that the intelligence that was accepted by every single country in the world over-stated Saddam's capacity with regards to WMD, we went to war with him for a number of reasons aside from this - and a moral argument that wasn't stated as clearly then is still valid. The goal of the writer didn't seem to be one of defending the war solely on moral grounds, it was one set on defending against the moral attacks that the supporters of the war seem to face from every side.

As for the comment of other dictators doing/being worse than Saddam, that is almost certainly true. There are many dictators that do absolutely horrific things to their citizens. However, I don't remember a single one of them that was actively trying (or had a realistic chance at)at gettin a WMD program going, thusly, this one would've moved to the top of the heap.

Additionally, though it almost has been beaten to death, the climate of the world changed after 9/11 - we found out the hard way that there can be too much to lose if we wait for someone to strike first. Given that, I can't see how anyone could credibly say that Saddam wouldn't have struck the US if he thought he had a reasonable chance of getting away with it.

Another point of thought here - Hussein deliberately, constantly, and without hesitation defied the terms of his surrender. He deliberately bribed countries to get around the 'food for oil' program. And since the countries he bribed were permanent members of the UN's security council, the UN sat toothless to do anything about it (not that I think they would've done anything anyway. The worst thing they could do is talk you to death or vote resolutions against you.).

Thusly, this would move him to the top of the 'deal with it today' pile on W's desk. Yes, I agree that W might have run on a ticket that was opposed to being (I can't remember that part of his campaign, so I'll defer arguing against until I have any proof - however, it does seem to ring true) the world's police force. However, given the events that happened right after he was elected, he needed to modify that position - and did so decisively, quickly, and about as well as can be expected at this point. Any other leader would've been obligated to do the same in his position.

Should we be the world's police force? No - I really don't think that's our position. Should we step in (unilaterally, if necessary) when our security is threatened? Absolutely. Should we step in if treaties we sign are ignored? Again, yes. Why? Because, if not, why do we even bother - we'd just become the UN then.

So, is the moral argument the prime reason for going to war? Nope - but it is a good reason - along with the others listed above.

Like the man said, piffling arguments, even the same piffling arguments. Which is why you should always RTFA, my friend.

The UN is not in the business of overthrowing dictators. The sanctions on Saddam were put in place to make him get rid of his WMD programs/stockpiles. Guess what?? It worked. You state that “most of us agree that the intelligence that was accepted by every single country in the world over-stated Saddam's capacity with regards to WMD” Yet we had Intel regarding at least his nuclear threat that said he didn’t have the capability and we ignored it. We had inspectors on the ground looking for the WMD’s (And I will give W credit here they were let back in the country because of W’s saber rattling) that could have given us the HUMINT necessary to let us know that the Intel we used to justify the war was shaky but the administration refused to give them time to do their jobs and when the weapons inspectors came back saying they hadn’t found anything yet and needed more time W went “Times Up”

It all doesn’t matter now. I don’t think I could get either Ron or Scott to actually say “The stated reason’s behind the war were wrong and boy did the administration royally screw up the aftermath” Simply because they are blindly loyal to this administration (I wonder if they will at least admit not guarding the various weapons cache’s in Iraq was a bad idea). We should only unilaterally go to war if there is a Clear and Imminent threat to our security (Which Saddam wasn’t) otherwise if we see a “Moral” reason we need to bring the rest of the international community along. Otherwise you get what we have in Iraq.

The UN was {link removed because apparently links to the UN website are barred from this page} CREATED to overthrow dictators, to ensure that something like the Holocaust could never happen again.

When did "never again" become "ever again?"

"Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the “guiding theme” of his regime was to be able to start making them again with “as short a lead time as possible.”

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one." Citation.

Who defines imminent? Who defines clear? How can an international community on the enemy's payroll be trusted?

Attacking me as "blind" does nothing to shore up a weak and discredited set of arguments. Piffling arguments, even.

(PS: un.org stuff removed from our blacklist. I think I pulled those from someone else's blacklist.)

hmmm - let's address this for right now. Couple of points:

1 - I absolutely do not blindly follow this administration. I've got issues with several things they've done and would like to do. I don't make bones about saying that at all (stem cell research, civil unions, etc.). I do, however, support many of the things they have done and will be just as vocal about that.

2 - I'll need to see your support on us having intel that Saddam didn't have any nuclear arms. As I remember it, he was being rather obstructionist to any of the inspectors. As I seem to remember it, that was the entire news coming out of Iraq prior to the war, therefore I'm not sure this statement is the complete picture, which is why I need to see the source so I can comment appropriately.

3 - As for gathering HUMINT, well, let's think about that for a second. We're talking about getting HUMINT in a country where a despotic dictator runs the place. If you speak out against him, he kills you and your family. So, we're going to send folks over there to gather real HUMINT? Not really gonna happen quickly, especially after Clinton cut the budget and reduced our HUMINT capabilities the world over (as stated in Senate hearings addressing the current military budget requests). Therefore, it would've taken years to get back to where we would need to be to have reliable intel - and this is after Hussein had spent 10 years ignoring, obstructing, bribing, and everything else he could do so he could get around the sanctions.

4 - the UN was created to make sure no one attacked other countries, no rulers committed atrocities such as mass killings, etc. However, they've become a bunch of bribe-taking bastards that have abandoned their mission in order to gain personal profit.

5 - I'll leave the clear and imminent to Scott's post. With one small exception - I'm sure the English and other countries that have troops in Iraq would be a bit pissed that you'd say we were there unilaterally...

It's actually kinda funny. Any argument against the war is a "Piffling argument" to Scott.

From Webster’s website:

Clear:
3 a : easily heard b : easily visible : PLAIN c : free from obscurity or ambiguity : easily understood : UNMISTAKABLE

6 : unhampered by restriction or limitation: as a : unencumbered by debts or charges

Immenint:\ ready to take place;

Where was this easily heard, easily visible ready to take place threat?? Why did we HAVE to go AT THAT TIME IN THIS MANNER?? The US actually chased out the UN Weapons Inspectors so they wouldn't be in any danger of getting hurt. The inspectors were what I was referring to as HUMINT (especially since they were beginning to make headway against all the crap Saddam had put in their way BECAUSE they recognized this administrations willingness to go to war.)

As for the nuclear threat?? Most if not all of the Intel regarding his nuclear program was in doubt in the various state department and other sources. AKA the so called African connection and the tubes that were supposed to be for atomic weapons but were actually for rockets etc etc.

I love the argument that we have a coalition because the Brits, Poles, Aussies etc etc are over in Iraq with us (And I applaud their efforts) but when 90% of the forces on the ground are yours, 90% of the casualties are yours, 90% of the cost is yours and your allies are, for the most part, located in secure areas of the country (Though the Brits have redeployed 800 Troops into the Baghdad area AT THE REQUEST of the US) then it’s kinda like Chrysler saying that their merger with Daimler is on an equal basis

Again, attacking me personally does nothing at all to shore up your discredited arguments. To repeat:

"Although they found no evidence that Saddam had made any WMD since 1992, they found documents which showed the “guiding theme” of his regime was to be able to start making them again with “as short a lead time as possible.”

Saddam was convinced that the UN sanctions - which stopped him acquiring weapons - were on the brink of collapse and he bankrolled several foreign activists who were campaigning for their abolition. He personally approved every one."

To me, this is more than enough. I have made essentially this same argument in a different essay (here: http://www.amcgltd.com/archives/003819.html). You can, do, disagree.

You seem to advocate allowing a threat to develop until it is so obvious everyone agrees something must be done. My counter-argument is that this test cedes the initiative to our enemies, and ensures disasters will happen. Clear and Present Danger makes a nice book title, but I believe it's the wrong test for a post-9/11 world.

You are also wrong to say 90% of the casualties are ours. However, considering your vice presidential candidate made the same egregious error, you are at least in good company.

Well, if we are to take just deaths into account then I find it odd that people are willing to debate with pounding fists over 2%. What I was just looking at put the US deaths at 88% of the coalition forces.

I admit that I have not lookied for foreign coalition forces casuality forces in injuries not resulting in deaths, but I can tell you I would be interested to see how the numbers stack up to the 8016 US soldiers wounded in action.

I've heard some interesting numbers that put the number much, much lower - if you realize that Iraqi's are fighting alongside us, then take their casualties (not the one's fighting against us), the number drops much lower - like 50% or so. And I agree - debating 2% is damn silly, unless there's some contractual reason where you have a limitation.

And to Jeff's point that 90% of the effort is ours, well, that's not surprising. I don't think it's ever been much different. Look at history. We've always been the major component. Look at resources - no one else could even come close without leaving their entire country unguarded. Seriously - there's a reason we're considered the only superpower at this point. It's not just the size of the army, it's the ability to actually support the army in the field. No one else can do that in the kind of numbers that we can. All of this brings me back to the point to say this is a coalition. The members involved are all participating as they can. If we bear a greater load, well, that just seems to be how things work in the world...

Ron I would agree with your point about our power except that Daddy Bush was able to run the Iraqi's out of Kuwait with a True Coalition. Also Clinton was able to get a regime change in the Balkans without baring 90% of the cost.

As far as the 50% casualty rating that’s Coalition casualties.

Scott it's clear that you are so totally pro war that you will not agree with anything said against it. I am not making attacks against you (You’re taking the criticism kind of like the way the Administration takes criticism by saying you are unpatriotic if you don't support us)

War is a terrible thing. Unless we are willing to take over the world we should not launch into war based on "Maybe" or "Sometime in the future they might" if we take that point of view then we will never be at peace because under that "Test" everybody is a threat (China, North Korea, Iran Saudi etc etc.) You don't cede the initiative by waiting for a Clear and Present danger to your country before going to war you get what we currently have in Iraq.

key differences between then and now:

China on the dole from Saddam
Russia on the dole from Saddam
France on the dole from Saddam

and am I to assume that by the 50% being coalition casualties that you are retracting your earlier statement?

Regime change? What regime change?

...And we're supposed to trust a UN coalition to keep Saddam Hussein from being re-elected in Iraq?

Actually, I wouldn't trust the UN to take out my garbage anymore. First, they'd have meetings aobut it. Then, they'd impose sanctions on the garbage. There'd be much debate about why there's garbage. The French would lead an attack to say that the garbage doesn't need to go out. That it belongs right where it's at. So what that it's rotting, encouraging all sorts of nasties to come into the house, exposing the children to potential disease and all - that's just some stupid American's point of view, and as we all know, American's are imperialist pigs hell-bent on subjugating the world. Then, only after the American's finally got disgusted and tried to take the trash out, the French would create an uproar that no French companies got a chance to profit.

Hell - disband the organization and start a new one. And then, if you're going to have a security council, make sure the countries on it have armies that don't surrender at the first sign of war...

You do realize that Milosvich is sitting in a Jail Cell in another country??

Is the UN Perfect?? No but it's all we got right now.

Can you go to war without UN approval?? Yes. Clinton did it in the Balkans and W did it in Iraq. Of the two ways of getting a regime change whithout the UN which would you prefer??

actually, it isn't all we've got. that implies that it serves some use other than that of a paperweight. since it doesn't, it's worse than not having anything at all. you could murder everyone in your country and get a strongly worded email out of them.

useless bastards. what we've got is the ability to get rid of them and start something actually useful. without those damn surrender monkeys...