Sauron

Process of elimination. Let's look at the various stated reasons, or the limp excuses offered by pro-Administration supporters:

• WMDs - if WMDs were the reason, then there are far worse offenders. Moreover, there appears to be little or not evidence of any WMDs in Iraq in the first place. Hence, WMDs cannot be the reason.
• Human rights - if human rights violations were the reason, then there are others who are equal, or far worse offenders. Hence, human rights violations cannot be the reason.
• Terrorism - terrorism cannot be the reason - there has never been any verified connection between AlQaieda and Hussein, despite many desperate attempts by the Dubya administration to blur Osama bin Laden's face so that the public see Saddam Hussein. Indeed, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, a full 40% of Americans believed that Iraq attacked the World Trade Center;
• UN inspectors - Refusal to permit UN inspectors cannot be the reason - because Iraq welcomed them in. It was this administration that tried to block the inspectors every move, refused to give them detailed information so they could conduct targeted inspections, and finally gave the inspectors the ultimatum to get out before the bombing commenced;

Getting the picture yet? None of these excuses is factually correct, or internally consistent. You might spend the time to educate yourself, and read a little on the real long-term strategy of the key players in the Dubya administration:
http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/n...tism/pnac.html

Or you could watch the oil companies lining up for a slice of the reconstruction pie - and the lucrative long-term contracts.

Or, you could read the news report of Rumsfield's reaction to the 9/11 disaster - he informed an aide:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in520830.shtml
Bottom line: the one and only motivation that is both factually correct and internally consistent is the desire for control of oil.

I'm not sure it even entered into their minds.

The administration knew that there were no WMDs or WMD programs, certainly not in amounts enough to justify an invasion. That's why they resisted the UN inspectors - before and AFTER the war. That's also why they were cagey and vague when asked for details - even when those details might have surfaced proof for their own claims and restored the administration's credibility, as well as garnered support in the UN and abroad.

And that's also why Wolfowitz admitted after the invasion that WMDs weren't the real motive for invasion - it was just the motivation that could focus the public attention most effectively. Hmm. Imagine that.

At the bottom of it all was oil - the desire for it, and the desire to control it as a commodity, or deny others that ability. Oil as a tool of economic and political power.

Hegemony - that's what I said above - oil as a tool of economic and political power.

Stability - hard to see that, since the US invasion decreased regional stability, not increased it;

Liberation of the Iraqi people - oh, please. You're confusing a wishful "freebie" with the administration's actual before-the-fact motivation.

Not true. We had plenty of contact and 'diplomatic games' with Iraq. Bush Sr engaged in it with Hussein; so did Reagan. But at that time, of course, there was no embargo or military action against Iraq; nor was there anything like the 'no fly zones'.
Hussein resisted while he was under embargo and military 'no fly' zones. Had a similar tactic been used against NKOR, you can bet that they would have also ejected any envoys so fast it would've made your head spin.

The reactions were different, but you overlook the fact that the conditions were also different. Therefore your conclusion that one regime could be engaged in diplomatic games (and the other one could not be) is not only historically incorrect, but ignores the apples/oranges differences in the starting points of the two regimes.

1. Who said we had to invade? We could just do surgical strikes - like we did in Iraq - to take out the weapons processing facilities.

2. There are other options, such as embargoes, blockades, etc. that are also short of invasion. The US hasn't tried those, either. Wonder why.

Oh, wait - no proven oil reserves.
:banghead:

Invading Syria is equally feasible - supports terrorism, has no superpower neighbors, and couldn't put up a real fight. Might also increase regional stability. Wonder why we didn't do that.

Oh, wait - no proven oil reserves.
:banghead:

You overestimate your own analysis, while ignoring what the war critics are saying.

Leviathan

Initially, this method of analysis is problematic. You are attempting to answer my question, concerning what the motivations for invading Iraq were, by process of elimination. There is an applicable rule of criminal law here, that is analagous to what you're trying to show.

In order to show that a "crime" in committed based upon circumstantial evidence, you must dismiss *every other option,* beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course its an analogy, and not a hard fast rule to this discussion, but I believe you fail to exclude every reasonable possibility, much less the ones you argue. Lets get to those.



This does not provide an accurate description of the situation in Iraq. For starters, Hussein has been shown, in the past, to use weapons of mass destruction, against civilians as well as during a time of war (Iran-Iraq). Thus, there is past evidence to show the use of WMDs. Thus, the propensity to use any, if any were in fact present, was relatively high.

Now to establishing that there was weapons of mass destruction. It is no secret that Hussein has attempted to acquire WMDs in the past. Any search of lexis or any other news search engine would show in the 90's, tons of articles citing that Hussein was attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, and supposedly already possessed chemical or biological agents. He used them for God's sake on his own people.

Your argument that there are 'worst' W.M.D. offenders is erroneous for numerous reasons. 1.) No other country with WMD's, to my knowledge, has such a history of using them on civilians, at least to the threat level of Iraq. 2.) N.K. will be answered below. 3.) Just b/c there are other WMD threats, does not de facto show that WMD's could not be a reason for going to war against Iraq.

This is faulty logic, and is analagous to the situation w/ WMD's from above. Just b/c Turkey is a human rights violator, does not mean that the US couldn't go to war against Hussein. It is almost undisputed that Hussein was a ruthless dictator which oppressed political dissidents, killed and murdered thousands, and basically was a tyrant that the people wished to overthrow.

The US constantly, throughout the 1990's, noted Iraq as a deplorable human rights violator, and yes, although there is some hypocrisy in the US's backing of Israel, that alone does not dismiss the fact that Iraq was a human rights violator, it merely shows the US has mixed political motives. Thus, it still could have been a motive for this war.

Hussein has been known to support terrorist groups in the Middle East, though I openly concede the connections to Al Qaieda were pretty shady. I've read of a few "meetings" between officials, but nothing for certain. I believe you've shown this could not have been a war aim.

Hussein attempted to "co-operate" with the inspectors, as a way to drive the wedge between the US and France/Russia/etcetera. Hussein, noting his past character for invading sovereign nations for *no* reason (yes, you will rebut with the US invading Iraq, but 40 nations supported the war, and there is at least an argument they had reasons, even if you don't agree with them), definately was not cooperating merely out of the goodness of his heart. This one's a wash, I believe. Possibly, possibly not.



I openly concede the US game players here have some shaky motives. They're looking to reestablish US hegemony, etc. I find it humourous though that your website, at the very top, quotes a Dr. Helen Caldicott. Is this the same Caldicott that vehemently opposes the expansion of nuclear power, claiming outrageous dangers from such power, and is known by every high school debater in the nation as a "quack?"

Claiming this is a new "Mein Kempt." Boy, if that isn't political rhetoric. It doesn't seem I'll be "educating" myself from this website, hardly at all. I believe the correct word is indoctrination.

Why don't we throw into the mix, in the "long-term plans" of the Administration, the promotion of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's see: couple years ago, tyranny, now, attempting democratic reform and self government. I'd say that's an improvement, wouldn't you?

Do you have any evidence of this? Is France and Russia also scrambling for contracts? You know, all those nations that vehemently opposed the war?

The Administration could push for increased drilling in ANWR, as well as other domestic reserves, as well.



Yet all you have presented is circumstantial evidence, and quotations which provide inferences, but nothing conclusive. In the face of other reasons for war, I'd say excluding all other possibilities, in my opinion, has not been met.

To other motivations, which I isolated, and Sauron addresses.

Hegemony - that's what I said above - oil as a tool of economic and political power.

"Hard," military power, not "soft" economic power. Control and stabilize the world through military power. If you need evidence of this theory, Zhalmay Khalilizad is always a good place to start. Khalilizad argues the world would be safer if the US exhibited unilateral power projection, supported democracy, and continued its reign as the world's only superpower. And guess who's been up to speak to Congress in the last couple years, even acting as an envoy for the Bush Administration? Z.K.

Stability - hard to see that, since the US invasion decreased regional stability, not increased it

In the short term. Long term stability is met by taking out one of the regions chief threats to Israel, as well as its neighbors. Iraq could not respect Kuwait's borders, nor could they temper their violent oppression of the Kurds, an ethnic group spanning numerous countries. Who was next?

Liberation of the Iraqi people - oh, please. You're confusing a wishful "freebie" with the administration's actual before-the-fact motivation.

This is connected to the above human rights argument. The promotion of democracy around the globe has been an American interest, recently since Afghanistan, as well as in our nation's last 30/40 years. We've done this through military invasion, as well as through more diplomatic ways. I recognize your argument that this is "after the fact," but our nation's recent history speaks otherwise. Having a second democracy in the Middle East would certainly stabilize a very dangerous part of the world.

To the North Korea argument:

Simply put, we did not have the diplomatic ties and chances at successful diplomacy, post '91 Iraq, as we have with North Korea. No Berlin deal has ever been attempted. No Agree Framework was setup. The only way of addressing Hussein's threat to world security was through economic sanctions through the U.N. In contrast, the US has sought to broker deals w/ Pyongyang through South Korea, Japan, even China, and although the relationship has been rocky, a policy of constructive engagement, for awhile during the Clinton Administration, was making real gains. N.K. was ceasing (supposedly) missle sales to Iran, Pakistan, and other states, and agreed to halt the development of its nuclear program. Yes, I know these efforts have recently failed, but they still show in the past decade diplomacy has been a better option, even "carrot and stick" diplomacy if you will. In contrast, no such diplomacy worked in Iraq: hell it wasn't even attempted.

Did we even have an envoy for Iraq? To my knowledge, I don't believe so.

You make an argument concerning the regimes' distinctions being "apples and oranges." Yes, certainly the nations are different, but we faced many of the same dangers. NK and Iraq both had threatened their neighbors in the past: we had stopped them both (somewhat in NK, more successful in Iraq). Both nations had made it clear they were attempting to defy the US and the democratic world. They oppressed their people, committed human rights abuses, both had sanctions b/c of it. Hell they were the college debate topic two years ago (debated on it). Websites and analysts constantly analyzed the "rogue states" of Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Syria. I'd say they're foreign policy with the US, despite differences in geography or whatever else you believe makes them distinguishable, are lessened by their similarities as mentioned above.

Finally, you ignore the Chinese Aggression argument, even for blockades or other "ways" to address NK. First, your argument was "why didn't we invade NK like Iraq?" Now it is, "why didn't we do something less aggressive, yet still aggressive to NK?" Two answers: diplomatic efforts w/ SK, Japan, China, not to mention the fact that the US somewhat fears Chinese Aggression in SE Asia. We don't want to piss them off. Who the hell are we going to piss off by taking out Iraq? (That is necessarily a threat to *WORLD* security - China is a key member of the UN, has a huge military, etcetera)

Sauron

Unfortunately, this is not a court of law, where witnesses can be cross examined. It is a more akin to historical research. Therefore, your paradigm right out of the starting gate is not actually valid for the discussion. But we'll continue anyhow.

Actually, it is quite accurate, as we'll see.

Irrelevant to the question of present use - which is all that matters to an invasion in 2003. You are trying to build a case for present invasion based on past behavior. Doesn't work. In addition, the administration's inability to show current possession and usage hasn't been addressed. Your argument is rejected.

Doesn't follow at all. The fact that someone did Action X in the past doesn't demonstrate that they'll do it now. Especially since you deliberately ignore the intervening 13 years of Iraqi history, the first Gulf war, the UN inspections, the blockading of Iraq, the no fly zones.

Your argument is again rejected.

Attempts to acquire - not in dispute, but it's ancient history. Those attempts were also severely shut down by international agreements, UN inspections, etc. And without present-day evidence of actual possession of those weapons, merely showing past attempts to acquire is not sufficient to build an argument for present-day invasion.

In addition, see this link from the Guardian. It lists 20 Lies about Iraq - the key point here is that many of those lies address the differences between what Iraq *used* to have, vs. what it was known to still possess in the days before the invasion:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=424008



Regarding prior use - you are merely repeating your previous argument, which did not hold.

My argument is not erroneous; but your assumption is. In building an argument for a present-day invasion of Iraq, your criterion (propensity to use) is invalid. Propensity to use is irrelevant if you cannot prove possession of the relevant weapon. Charles Manson is harmless, if he doesn't have access to a knife.

No one in the UN, or in the peace movement, ever made the argument that Saddam was anything except a ravenous lion. But if you de-claw and de-fang the lion, that removes the ability to do anything except roar very loudly.

BTW, Iran has a WMD program:
http://www.iraqresearch.com/html/rl30551.html
http://www.meib.org/articles/0203_irn1.htm

So do North Korea and Pakistan.

Sure it does. For the aforementioned reason that no evidence of WMDs exists in Iraq. It also surfaces the obvious contradiction in the administration's position. There are countries with:

* more active WMD programs than Iraq ever had, where they are
* closer to achieving their goals than Iraq ever was; and where
* they have a history of war with their neighbors

yet such countries were not invaded by Dubya. What is the distinguishing characteristic?

Iraq has the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserves. :banghead:

The logic is not faulty, because (1) no evidence of present-day WMDs has ever been found in Iraq, and (2) if the administration's true concerns were over active WMDs in the hands of countries who might use them, then there are more obvious targets for invasion.

And for the US to go to war with Iraq, using human rights as the stated reason, and yet not go to war with equal or more aggregious violators, again exposes an inconsistency in our policy, since human rights violations occur elsewhere, and arguably with more brutality and cruelty. There really are some regimes that are worse on their people than Saddam was on the Iraqis - Myanmar comes to mind.

Yep. But he is only one of a dozen or so such dictators. Yet we mysteriously only invaded the one who is sitting on the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserves. :banghead:

(1) Assuming only for the sake of argument that Dubya cared about human rights in Iraq - the US noted human rights violations all over the world, as you point out. Yet it only invaded here. There is no credible human rights policy here, when it is applied in cases that only serve US self-interest. In like fashion, there is no credible justification for war, when the US fails to enforce that or press its case anywhere else.

(2) The human rights situation in Iraq was the same on the day that Dubya was elected, as it was in late 2002. That human rights situation did not suddenly take a nosedive during the early years of this administration. Had it done so, then a plausible argument for human rights being a reason for war might be made. So there has been no change in the external equation (i.e., human rights in Iraq), yet the US invaded. Given that fact, what made the invasion an immediate necessity for this administration?

The logical conclusion is that human rights was not the causus belli behind Dubya's invasion. And by oil, I don't mean the simplistic argument that Dubya just wanted to get rich. But oil as a tool of power, the ability to control it or deny control of it to other people, to preserve American market control over a precious commodity for the next 40 or 50 years. Perhaps even to provide a counterweight (although a bad one) to the Saudi influence in OPEC. Make no mistake - all other arguments for invasion implode when examined critically. The last argument standing is Iraq's oil.

When you have 20 or so countries that all exhibit the same characteristic, yet only one is invaded, it is necessary to search for the distinguishing characteristic that sets that one country apart from the other 19 - Iraq has the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserves. :banghead:

As the proferred excuses are knocked down for factual inaccuracy or internal inconsistencies, whatever remains standing is the actual justification. This is also an example of why your courtroom paradigm for this analysis is not appropriate, BTW.

Excellent.

So given the fact that these connections were "shady", as you put it, what does that say about this administration's willingness to fabricate emotionally explosive (but factually bankrupt) justifications for its foreign policy actions?

Hussein's support for terrorism is not disputed - but it is also not unique, or very prominent. And, compared to Iranian/Syrian support for Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, it really does pale in comparison. That's actually a point that I'd like to dwell on for a moment.

I remember reading an intelligence analysis right after 9/11 that pointed out that the CIA and FBI were worried because everyone was focused on AlQaeda. The intelligence organizations considered AlQaeda to be the "B-string" players in terrorism; the upstarts, compared to the real professionals in Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The US' stated goal is to have a lasting peace in the Mideast. Assume for the moment that is the case. Currently, the outside interlocutors largely responsible for de-railing this in the Israeli/Palestinian situation are non-resident independent groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. (This excludes the orthodox obstinancies of the Likud party, of course). Speaking totally as a geopolitical realist, and gven the strategic interests of the US/Israeli alliance in that area, the US' interests would have been far better served by targeting these other two groups, than by targeting Saddam Hussein.

So again: if we were truly concerned about stopping terrorism, then we would have selected Syria and Iran for military action, instead of Iraq. Yet we chose Iraq instead. Why?

Iraq has the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserves. :banghead:


1. You're speculating as to his motives. That's interesting, but you cannot demonstrate that it was a wedge tactic, as opposed to a genuine reaction of a fear of invasion. Given the poor performance of the Iraqi military - especially poor, in comparison to Gulf War 1, it's just as likely that Hussein realized that he was in no position to repel an invasion. After 13 years of a crippling embargo, his military was in far worse shape than it was in Gulf War 1 - Hussein, being supreme commander, would have obviously known that.

2. In any event, Hussein's cooperation could not merely be lip service, since the UN inspectors would have reported any failure to comply with the inspection regime - and that, of course, would have triggered the US invasion, which Hussein had to avoid in order to keep his "wedge tactic" alive. Hussein may have been attempting to drive a wedge, but if
(a) the inspections were being freely permitted, and if
(b) no evidence of WMDs was found,

then what difference does it make? The stated goals of disarming him and allowing UN inspections would have both been achieved. Had those actually been the true goals of this administration, then everything would have been fine. But achieving (a) and (b) above would still not give the US control over the oil - so Dubya had to find a way to insist on inspections, yet reject the results, so that the planned invasion could proceed.

As I indicated - the fact that Hussein might have engaged in that as a wedge tactic -- as opposed to some heartfelt act of contrition -- is irrelevant to the final outcome. A difference which makes no difference is no difference - Hussein's motives are irrelevant, as long as he complied.

"My website"? You mean the first URL? I only gave that because it's a page that contains many useful links, especially one for the strategy documents I mentioned (i.e., the Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rumsfield "Strategy for a New Century" nonsense.) I have no idea what the website owner thinks. You should take that up with him/her.

Or you could stop spinning on the website itself, and focus on the actual links to the document in question.

Actually, you probably don't want to go there. This administration's commitment to democracy in Afghanistan appears to have trickled off to zero.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2759789.stm

Evidently, Afghanistan is no longer flavor of the month, as long as Iraq is on their minds. They can multitask foreign policy issues.

Of course, bringing in Hamid Karzhai was probably not the best move; he's a former oil company executive (of course).
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...231457,00.html

Other "highlights" of American long-term planning in Afghanistan include:

*the religious sharia laws are back in place, and women are being forced out of the schools and back into the shadows;
* the warlords continue to control the countryside outside the immediate area of the capital city; and
* the poppy production (for opium) has reached an all-time high - being propped up by warlords who are US allies:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/935176.asp
http://www.msnbc.com/news/935243.asp

And a general synopsis of our "success" there:
http://www.mojones.com/news/dailymoj...79_03.html#two
Not exactly a record to crow about.

No, I wouldn't - and neither would most Afghans. They are remembering the fact that they originally welcomed the Taliban, because they threw off the Soviet yoke. It wasn't until afterwards that the repression started. The Afghans see a familiar pattern here - joy at first, and then business as usual after the initial change of power.

So no - there has been no improvement.

Yes, they are. They have long-term interests in these oil fields, but are being shoved to the back of the bus in favor of American firms. Do a google search on "Halliburton" if you want an example of such a tactic.

Nonsense. Drilling is ANWR has the following problems that drilling in Iraq does not have:

• it faces strong domestic opposition, and would require Congressional approval;
• the break-even point (price per barrel) at which petroleum is economically feasible to recover is much higher than in Iraq;
• the proven reserves are much lower than in Iraq;
• the most optimistic estimates of oil flowing from ANWR place it somewhere between 10 and 15 years away - assuming that the break-even point is reached;
• the total supply would only amount to the US's consumption over six months - not nearly enough to wield as a tool of geopolitics;

The two (ANWR and Iraq) aren't even remotely comparable.

All the stated reasons for Dubya's war in Iraq are either factually inaccurate or internally inconsistent. The only common thread that remains true in the face of all the evidence is this administration's desire to control the world's 2nd largest oil reserves. :banghead:

The evidence that I have presented is sound. In addition, you failed to address one fatal flaw in the administration's position: the utter inability to find any WMDs in Iraq today, and their unwillingness to permit the inspectors to conduct fully detailed inspections. Most of yoru positions are predicated on past behavior of Iraq, but they self-destruct because you do not account for the intervening years between Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2, and the various changes and restrictions placed upon Iraq.

And finally, you have yet to make any pro-administration argument that comes close to the level of detail or analysis that I have provided.

End of Part 1.

Farren

Sauron, you're in for the long haul. Looks like Leviathon has just joined up in time to miss the countless refutations of nine-tenths of his premises on these very boards.

I wish you the best of luck

Sauron

Feel free to jump in.
I don't want to hog all the fun.

Farren

I did, actually. I spent over an hour crafting a point by point refutation with links to other threads et al before someone switched on a faulty plate on the stove and the power went out, so I thought I'd just placate my traumatised self by posting you some encouragement.

Expect my input.

Blixy Sticks

Your explanation is exponentially more creative than Sakpo's.

Tortilla or Pita? Tortilla or Pita?

Paper or Plastic? Paper or Plastic?

Sauron

Basically, you're arguing for a unilateral world superpower to remake the planet it is own image. That's merely a elegant rephrasing of my indictment of this administration's foreign policy. You and I might disagree over whether it was oil, or just brute world domination that Dubya was after. But the end result is still an indictment of the administration. And, of course, such a philosophy is precisely what I was point you at, when I gave you the URL earlier:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

I don't need evidence of the theory; I'm aware that members of the Iraqi National Congress have been lobbying the administration. That's how someone like Ahmad Chalaby got to be the #1 information source on Iraqi popular response to an invasion in Rumsfield's cabinet - and of course, he was totally wrong about that. (Can't be helped, though - he's been out of the country for 30 or 40 years, and no longer can function as an accurate barometer of the political mood there).

ZK's self-interests are also being served, by promoting this ideology to this administration and to the Congress.

Facts not in evidence - to borrow your courtroom metaphor.

There is no evidence that this will result in long-term stability. You have shoved an I.O.U. onto the poker table, and asked us to take it on faith that such is the case. Unfortunately, I'm not prepared to grant you that at all. The evidence against it falls into two buckets:

(1) The list of such American interventions that have actually improved the target country, created ademocracy, and left behind a market- based economy behind when the US withdrew can be summarized as two: Germany and Japan. Your argument for long-term stability has no historical backing.

(2) The special nature of Iraq (tribal, ethnically diverse, religiously split, no shared history of democracy or market economy) makes your argument especially weak for this particular country.

Instead of just helping Israel to knock off its (rather long) list of enemies in the world, long term stability in the region would be far better served by resolving the Palestinian question. American unwillingness to confront the Israelis and force the question to resolution has been the key sticking point in finding a lasting solution here.

Non-sequitir. See previous arguments about disarming the lion.

Actually the history of American intervention shows that the promotion of democracy has *not*, in fact, been an American interest. Had that been the case, then we would not have installed, supported, or propped up so many dictatorships and military regimes around the world in the last 30/40 years. Moreover, we would not have actively fought *against* democratic movements in several countries - where those democratic movements endangered our relationship with whoever the ruling despot was at that time.

What *has* been an American interest in the last 30/40 years is what I said all along: the USA seeking its own self interest, at the expense of other countries.

How silly. The "recent history" shows that our interventionism has not been to support democracy. It has been to further American interests.

Remember Kuwait, and how Dubya's father told everyone that we were intervening to preserve democracy there? Well, there is still no democracy in Kuwait - and the fledgling steps that were being made during and immediately after Gulf War 1 were quietly shut down after the international spotlight shifted away from that country.

Wishful thinking, but it isn't going to happen - certainly not in Iraq.


Circular argument - which I am not buying. If you're claiming that no diplomatic channels or framework existed, then it's because we didn't want to create them. There are always back channels to countries - even countries that we don't formally recognize, or with whom we haven't established ambassadors.

To use a parallel example - the entire Oslo accords between Israel and the Palestinians were conducted in back channels, except for the final meetings. If Israel and the Palestinians can create or exploit alternative channels for diplomatic contact, then there is no reason why the US could not have done so with Iraq, had they been inclined to do so. Hell; the Europeans were certainly dealing with Iraq; you've already mentioned the French and the USSR. The US could have used one of those countries to act as a go-between. Or, the US could have used the offices of The Arab League, the UN, any number of umbrella NGOs to conduct such discussions.

Your argument that no diplomatic channels existed is simplistic and ignores the realities of diplomatic processes.

Nonsense, as I've just demonstrated.

And we could have done the same thing with Iraq - except that we were not willing to open up or create such diplomatic channels. It wasn't Saddam Hussein who refused to talk; it was the US. So when administration apologists like yourself try to claim that no other avenues existed for dialog with Iraq, all you're really doing is demonstrating a self-fulfilling arugment: if the US refuses to create such channels, then it can honestly say that no channels exist. That does not answer the original question, however, of why the US refused to open up such avenues in the first place.

My point exactly. However, the fault lies with the US and (to a far lesser extent) the west. I say that, because all during the 1990s, most of Europe was dealing openly with Iraq.

Irrelevant technicality. It isn't necessary to have a formal envoy, to conduct discussions.

You missed the point of my post. You stated:

Whereas Hussein would stiff any envoys sent to him, North Korea has brokered deals such as the Berlin Deal, the '94 agreement under Clinton's Presidency (the Agreed Framework), and other agreements which "supposedly" would lead to peace.

I assumed you were trying to say that dealing diplomatically with NKOR was a realstic possibility, while dealing with IRaq was not. If my interpretation is correct, then the reason your parallel between Iraq and NKOR is invalid is because of the differences in the starting positions of the two regimes

one was under military no fly zone - the other was not;
one was under embargo - the other was not;
one was under UN inspections - the other was not;
one was being prevented from selling its most precious export on the world market - the other was not;

So when you point out the difference in how NKOR responded to US dipomacy vs how Iraq responded, you have to account for the differences in how each country was being treated. Your position does not account for that.

OK so far. Noting, of course, the differences in how the US treated Iraq, vs. how it treated NKOR.

Invalid conclusion.

The US deliberately chose *not* to have such diplomatic channels with Iraq. And it deliberately chose to differentiate how Iraq was treated, vs. how NKOR was treated. Given those facts, it isn't surprising that results with NKOR were more favorable than they were with Iraq.

To put this another way: if the US had treated Iraq identically to how it treated NKOR, I seriously doubt any Gulf War 2 would have been necessary. The US has pretty much created its own justification for that war, and then (surprise, surprise) found it necessary to invade. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

Do I? Let's see.

Hence our real motive isn't human rights - it's "who can we attack and reasonably beat, without any real threat to ourself?"

End of Part 2.

Leviathan

I smell sharks, so I'll stay out of the water.

Shall we begin?

The Paradigm:

I believe the legal analogy to circumstantial evidence proves a worthy one. When building a case, either in court or in a logical argument in a coffee shop, if you're trying to prove something by disproving all other "reasonable efforts," you must do so by excluding every other reasonable effort. Its a very tenuous process, and one that few prosecutors, much less college students in politics classes, ever masters. Thus, I believe trying to prove the motive for war in Iraq by saying everything it isn't, is an uphill battle.

Just b/c you find the argument rejected, doesn't make it so, or even that a reasonable person would find it to be. Again, if we're talking about the international polity here, analogies to law serve a great deal in helping us understand the situation. In the "court of world opinion," similar transaction evidence of past misdeeds can go a great way in proving motivations of the present. Thus, past behavior is *extremely* relevant to this argument. I'm sure if we were discussing the hegemonic goals of the U.S. during Vietnam, you would (or at least could) make analogies to Korea, the use of the bomb in WWII, to further your case. THus, you claiming "doesn't work," when not giving a warranted reason for why past misdeeds may not be introduced, isn't very compelling.

To the issue of the administrations (in)ability to show weapons. Most of that surrounds the threat of nuclear proliferation, as Bush and company oogled at Hussein's desire to obtain WMDS. Throughout the 90's it was clear, even through the attempted reform of a more aggressive policy from Bush I, that Hussein was attempting to obtain WMDs. Thus, once again, the past speaks for itself. To the present day, I have to concede, b/c any reasonable person would, that it is questionable as to why the weapons have not been found. Maybe they were hidden, maybe not: nothing is conclusive, and news reports from today, while certainly drawing the question to light, certainly do not definatively cook Bush.

I believe we are at an impasse: you seem to wish to offer even the slightest credibility to the argument that actions in the past can repeat themselves, especially when dealing with ruthless dictators. You are quick on the draw to state of a "deliberate" ignoring of the 13 year interim period, but do not state why this is important. I'm sorry, I cannot read your mind, and would like for you to actually give a warranted reason why I should follow your proposition.

In contrast, it seems very reasonable to me to say that since a man has used chemical weapons in the past (are you going to dispute this, or agree?), that the usage of such weapons, again, has to be relatively high. I have isolated numerous scenarios for how Hussein could have used them again, such as on his own people, the Kurds, in a violent suppression, as he did before, or on Israel. He's still sore, of course from Kuwait, and so his hatred for America and anything that America supports seems to show an increased probability that such weapons, if possessed, could have been used.

This entire statement is unnerving. It should be apparent from my last post I was not going to contest the fact that other nations attempted in the 90's to obtain WMDs, such as NK, Pakistan, and yes, Iran. What you choose to "deliberately" ignore is that my argument was that there is not an increased propensity for these nations to use such weapons, given they have not used them on civilians in the past *if at all.* Pakistan is deadlocked in a struggle-to-the-death of Kashmir with India, and using such weapons would certainly invite annihilation from India. North Korea, as explored in my previous argument, has been more prone, or at least has shown itself as being more open, to diplomatic efforts. Iran, to my knowledge, has not proliferated in an "offensive" capacity, and in the past couple years has claimed their proliferation is only for nuclear power.

Additionally, your make an argument that propensity to use is not an issue, if there is no weapon. This is faulty for a few reasons: a) first, the weapons of chemical and biological agents have historically been recognized as present in Iraq. If you wish to dispute this, I could find the sources for you, but I would believe it to be relatively well known around the world. b) Even if there is no weapon at the present time, a future threat can still be a dangerous one. North Korea is a good example of this: through a policy of brinkmanship the Clinton Administration recognized how dangerous it would be if N.K. possessed nuclear weapons. Numerous interest groups and lobbies wrote a slew of reports finding that such a situation would threaten global security. Thus, the Clinton Administration deemed N.K. a threat, Clinton once stating it was the "most dangerous place on earth," and therefore they took action to attempt to dissolve that. Thus, past policy evidences the clear fact that our government still identifies threats, even if they are not currently holding the knife. Yes, Manson without a knife might not be dangerous, but Manson, wanting and seeking a knife, with the possibility of having more than a knife, but say a bazooka, now yes, that's a threat.

Bang your head against the wall all you want, you have still yet to isolate exactly how this "hypocrisy" is just the death-knell of the administration.

The distinguishing characteristic, to you, seems all too apparent, and nothing will change your mind. In contrast, all you have is speculation, *speculation* that the motivation was oil: do you have any evidence to show, concretely, not circumstantially, that the motivation was oil? I'd love to see it.

In contrast, I have analyzed, painstakingly, for you, the distinction between the dangerous N.K. threat and the Iraq one. I'm not sure how much you have studied the NK threat, but again, I've said this before no such diplomatic efforts, like the Berlin Deal or the Agreed Framework, supported through allied nations, such as South Korea, Japan, and China, have *ever* been brokered between the United States and Iraq. A realist foreign policy paradigm states that you only go to war when it is the last result, and if the policy goal to be met is WMDs, stability, hegemony, or whatnot, with Iraq and NK, it seems that in Iraq there was less to risk, than with NK. There is no China near Iraq, there is no *already-in-possession* of nuclear weapon state in Iraq. North Korea, could in theory, use the weapons if you invaded NK. Thus, NK gets more "respect" in the realist foreign policy paradigm, given that they could theoretically use those weapons. Thus, while they are a bigger "threat," the specifics of that situation do not lend to a conclusion that we should've attacked them first. In contrast, Iraq, attempting to obtain WMDs, was weakened by the Gulf War, its economy was in shambles, and its army nothing to match the United States. Thus, there was less to *risk* in attacking Iraq, in contrast to a larger risk in NK.

Why do you continue the line of WMDs argument, dealing with human rights? The Turkey analogy I gave served the argument that just b/c there are other human rights violators in the world, does not mean the US could not attack Iraq for human rights reasons. Additionally, just b/c there are regimes that you *believe* are more brutal, does not mean the US could not attack Iraq for human rights reasons. It is well documented throughout the 90's that the United States condemned Iraq's "deplorable" human rights conditions, in front of the UN and any other international body that would stand to listen to the US. THus, the US could have attempted to promote democracy, rule of law, and all those other little values that the "American dream" is exhibited by, to Iraq. Bush's statements during the war lend some creedence to this argument, especially in the light of Afghanistan. We supported democracy in Afghanistan, Bush talked about supporting democracy around the globe, thus, invade Iraq and overthrow a cruel dictator, symbolic to all the world of brutal dictatorship, and install democracy in the Middle East. Also, this makes even more sense in the Middle East, a very unstable region, as the US could support a second infantile democracy, and provide long term stability in the region. Democracies are less prone to war, and thus, that could have been a legitimate war end.

*You* see it as self interest, that doesn't mean the administration does. The promotion of democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy in the last 50 years. This is uncontested, unless you wish to question it, I'll assume we agree. Thus, the United States, as I previously argued, could have seen the Iraqi regime as an example to the world of one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, and just b/c there are other mean guys out there does not mean that we could not desire to depose one.

Take an example: there are 5 bad families on my street. Everyone knows they whip their kids and whatnot, so on Monday I go after one of them, and tell them to stop. They don't listen, so I tear down their door and pull them away from their kid, whom they are in the process of beating. My actions may still be motivated to help *those* kids, and the other 4 families are still present. Maybe one of the families is more prone to counseling (N.K.), and adheres to agreements (at least for awhile), while other countries may still be bad, but I only have limited resources to deal with whom I may.

Now this is a pretty good argument. My reply is just b/c the situation hadn't gotten worse, does not necessarily mean that Bush didn't act out of human rights motivations. Bush was newly elected: its hard for a President to go straight to war, after being elected, especially in the turbulent political climate of Bush v. Gore that he was elected in. Thus, he had to boost his political capital before being able to tackle the beast.

Do you have any evidence for this thesis? I continue to ask that, b/c while your argument seems plausible, you're doing nothing but attempting to read the minds of the administration, and predict their "hopes of the future." The way we make such an argument credible is to find statements, reports, etc, to show that oil was the motivation. The control of oil is certainly important in the international arena, I won't be so silly as to argue it isn't, but it just doesn't make economic sense. The latest tally for fighting the war in Iraq, not to mention the continued efforts at reconstruction, has the bill in the billions of dollars. Numerous economists argue this could crash the economy, and make Bush lose the election. A cost-benefit analysis, as of now, seems to suggest oil *couldn't* have been the motivation, b/c the costs were too high, for benefits *way* too far into the future. While I'm no economist, and I certainly don't understand the intricacies of the social science, that at least makes sense to me.

What you don't seem to understand is that *you* established such a paradigm: of "knocking all the other pins down," I only made the legalistic analogy. It was your assumption that we could "knock down" all the other pins, and thus magically find the answer we've been searching for. Its very hard to prove a truth by a negative, and I'm sad to say I don't believe you've carried your burden, but hey, that's just me.

You could follow suit, and concede where arguments against your propositions are reasonable...

To answer your question, it says that Bush is like any other President or man (or woman) in power: they will use what history has given them to attempt to achieve their goals. The War on Terror gave Bush the political prowess necessary to hammer a war in Iraq through Congress, against the dems, who had opposed such unilateral, hegemonic acts before. Its a cornerstone of the Republican foreign policy: screw constructive engagement, throw up sanctions, and if they don't listen, invade. I'm not advocating such a foreign policy, but I am explaining it, and showing how oil might not be the only reason for such a war (if in fact it was a reason at all: I still don't see why its cost effective in the short term - meaning for the span of his Presidency).

We are starting to find some common ground, at least in methodology. We agree the stated goal is peace in the Middle East: you and I just have two different arguments about how to obtain it. Given that Iraq threatened the Middle East with invasion, through state-sponsored violence, an argument could be made that these threats were more "pressing" to the international arena, than terrorism. Now 9/11 certainly changed that fabric, and so I'm open to the counterargument, but it seems to me that fighting a nation is easier than fighting a terror organization. This is what all the analysts have been saying since 9/11: Terrorism is a harder enemy to fight, b/c its secretive and covert. Thus, it was easier to take out Iraq, establish a democracy, to fight terrorism *later.*

Seems reasonable enough to me, within a realist foreign policy paradigm.

You're speculating about George Bush's motives. Non-unique, so so what.

The Iraqi military argument actually bolsteres my position. If Hussein was such in bad straights, then "cooperating" with the inspections, in an effort to fool France and Russia into calling for stops to the war, seemed to be a plausible line of action. Sure, now history (as the war shows) might tell a different story, but that does not mean that Hussein couldn't have still acted in such a manner: it just shows the realist foreign policy paradigm is flawed. Wow, that's been proven before.

Spinning a website with such qualifications attacks the credibility of their argument. If I started a religious debate with quoting evidence from religious zealots, I'm sure you'd say something too. The actual links... I'm sorry, I haven't the time to read them all. What I have read seems to be... ok newsreporting. Certainly slanted, and slanted quite a bit, but nothing over the top that just makes me want to laugh.

Right, you gave me that website as a way to "educate" myself. My answer to you is that it doesn't seem much "education" would be constructed around a website using the words "Mein Kempf" in an alluding way to the current war. I believe even the rules of the forum say something concerning crazy analogies. And yes, I'm not saying you were advocating such positions, of course not, only that your presentation of such evidence might not be a good place to start to "educate" onesself about the war.

I much prefer lexis.com, but hey, not everyone has a password.

To the Afghanistan argument:

Your link from the BBC does not discount the fact that we overthrew a dictatorship and helped the people to establish a democracy. That's historical fact. Just b/c your evidence speaks to attacks from the Taliban does not mean that the United States wishes to promote democracy. Your evidence is only rhetorical, explaining the dangers that the people of Afghanistan faces. Whoop-dee-do. Is it your argument that we would rather allow dictatorship than democracy in Afghanistan? I don't believe so, but I thought I'd ask.

Also, you make the erroneous error of proscribing conduct to American policy in Afghanistan, that I'm pretty sure is not our aim. The expulsion of women from school and poppy production do not seem to fit the stated ends of American policy: in fact your evidence speaks to the *cause* of such problems: the local warlords. Your evidence, stating that Bush is "abandoning" Iraq is also speculative, concerning the amount of aid we are going to give to the country. The first line of your evidence, if I remember correctly (read the links in order), is that there was... 300 million dollars in suggested aid for the country. If you will note, your evidence says the *US Congress* gave that aid, regardless of Bush, and thus we aren't "abandoning" the country: the Democrats merely pushed for more money that Bush. Wow, so what. I'm sure that we're not just going to say, "ok, screw you!" We're giving money, and its money that one could hope will be very well spent.

So allow me to understand your argument better... is your argument that the people of Afghanistan would rather live in a dictatorship, which killed political dissidents, oppressed women in almost all of civil society, they would rather have *that,* than attempted democratic reform? You think that is "better?" How about you cite me to a link, news story, something that shows the Afghani people would rather live under the Taliban?

More specifically, lets analyze the administration's dedication to democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq:

Sure, all they see is the same old dictatorship, just a new leader.

Democracy promotion, globally, and deposing dictators is a part of that. Calling for increased money to Afghanistan, and other areas of the globe, and Bush is on a "mission" for democracy. Sounds like a war aim to me.

The ANWR debate, seems like a reasonable argument. Fair enough.

There it is again, unable to account for, or even recognize, the validity of the argument you don't agree with. I'm providing analysis, the question is whether you wish to see it.

Let me corrrect your error in the form of a question: whomever said I was "pro" administration? Just b/c I am skeptical that the war aim was oil, and am analyzing the administration's foreign policy goals, in contrast to your remarking at the "scant" analysis, that does not mean I'm "pro" Bush, much less a Republican. Jesus, I voted for Nadar.

Leviathan

Part II will be much more short, as this is already too big for folks to follow, and restatement is constantly occuring

Unilateral, "Hard Power."

You don't seem to understand that I can agree with your indictment of the administration and still make my argument. If unilateral hardpower is the goal of the Administration, and you've just argued in your last post is the case, then oil is not the goal: stability around the globe through democracy, rule of law, and military power is the goal. Thus, it provides another reason that oil could be not the *only* reason, if a reason at all, if we're going by your "knock the pins" down analogy.

Thank you for making my argument for me.

However, you become skeptical of the "long-term" versus "short-term" stability argument, quipping with "facts not in evidence." Evidently you need to read up and "educate" yourself about ZK's and other hardpower theorists then. They argue, against "backlash" arguments by sayin that the long-term will still be met. It isn't I that has slapped the "I.O.U. on the poker table," its the administration and their foreign policy paradigm. If you don't trust me, fine, I don't care: read the evidence and decide for yourself. Khalilizad and other unilateralists won't be too hard for you to find on google.

You need to keep reading, evidently, if you believe it isn't an interest.

You could also note my links above, concerning democracy promotion. I don't want to burden a slew of links on you, so lets just say that one link represented about 50 news articles I found on lexis. Happy reading.

"How silly" I just provided you evidence we're sending envoys and aid, to promote democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can remain a skeptic, seeing this evidence, and the tons more out on the web, as "silly" if you want: I see it as a counterpoint to your skepticism and "motivations are oil" argument.

Nice opinion. Newsflash, the Administration does not share your opinion, thus, they believed it to be a war aim. My evidence from yesterday proves that so.

To North Korea:

With all due respect, do you even know what the Berlin Deal and Agree Framework was with NK? That is the distinguishing argument I am making, and all you have said essentially boils down to "circular argument: I"m not buying it."

I've studied the topic for a few years now, and I'm buying it. Oh well, if you don't.

I'd just *love* for you to show me that the nations the United States sanctioned through the 1990's, and which a condition of those sanctions was no diplomatic recognition, nor policy intercourse with those nations, had diplomatic channels with the United States. A short list of those nations that were sanctioned is: Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. If you need to read up on the sanctions, check the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Helms Burton Act, and other related sanctions, whereby we completely socially ostracized...

"simplistic..." Hardly.

This is the second time you've made this error: do not categorize me as an administration apologist. Just b/c you don't understand my argument completely does not make me an apologist. I am simply providing you with arguments that there were other motivations for war: that does not force me to back Bush, or to even be a supporter. Look at my profile for God's sake: how many supporters of Bush do you know that are relativist/nihilists?

And your point in the aforementioned paragraph is... honestly pointless. The US saw that diplomacy with Iraq *hadn't* worked: evidence Gulf I. The economic sanctions placed on Iraq were *worldwide* sanctions, thus the international community concurred in the judgment of the United States. Thus, the only logical conclusion is to see that such actions were not supported by the IC and the US, b/c they were seen as fruitless.

In contrast to NK, no such "fruitless enterprise" was the sentiment during the Clinton Administration's policy of constructive engagement. For your argument to be true, you would have to completely reinvent the history of 1992-98 concerning North Korea. Bottom line, it's distinguishable.

Your distinctions between NK and Iraq are not persuasive. None of them explain the US foreign policy outlook for the last decade: your analysis is stuck in a time warp of the last 2 years, and that's about it. Iraq was a diplomatic black hole, while in North Korea there was at least light at the end of the tunnel.

End Part II