Edited by author 03-22-2003 12:02 PM
"And I'm saying that if the foreign service and intelligence services say that Bush's approach to this war has been disasterous and will do us long-term damage, we should take notice and heed their advice. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't."

Again, NO suggestions from you. If you aren't going to state ANY alternatives then I'm done trying to discuss this with you.


Dan Z:

Both of your alternatives involve the threat of force, which the FRENCH and RUSSIANS said EXPLICITLY that they would VETO. Those are EXACTLY the type of resolutions that 1441 SHOULD have been, but with the French promising to veto ANY resolution that includes the use of force as a penalty, these would NOT have been approved. These are the types of resolutions that Bush WANTED, but the French made if VERY clear that they would veto them. Since the UN would not be able to pass any resolutions that had teeth, Bush was forced to build a coalition of his own and go around the UN. Remember, right before his "48 hour deadline" he and the British were going to propose a 30 day deadline for FULL inspections or war begins, and the French said, WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY, that they will veto it since it threatens force. That has the UN's hands 100% tied behind their back, exposing a fatal flaw in the system and reducing the UN Sec Council to a debate forum rather than an effective legislative body.


"I'm curious: why do you think so many people in so many countries oppose this war? What exactly is it that they're protesting, in your eyes?"

Simple: It's the FIRST preemptive war we've fought. WWII we waited for Japan to bomb us, the Gulf War we had Iraq invading Kuwait, etc. There are certain conditions that people see as JUSTIFIED for war:

1. Direct attack against your country.
2. Direct attack against an ally.

That's about it. Think about applying that policy to other things, like police work. If a man in a mask comes into your house and puts a gun to your head, the Police couldn't do anything until the robber PULLS THE TRIGGER. It's like those innefecctive stalking laws (that have since been changed) that allows a stalker to follow you, threaten your life, but the police cannot do anything until they actually try to kill you. We saw the idiocy of those laws and changed them, and we are finally coming around to do the same with military doctrine.

The Hawks, lead by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, started pushing after 911 to change military doctrine so that the US doesn't have to wait for an attack to strike first (actually, Wolfowitz wrote the new doctrine under Bush Sr. but it was shelved when it got leaked to the press and Bush Sr. re-wrote it into a "Containment" doctrine instead). This new doctrine of preemption is tough to swallow for many, but the world has changed. This isn't the chivalrous days where armies would announce their intentions in advance, these are times were planes are being flown into buildings and the enemy hides everywhere. Because of this, when a threat exists, the US is justified in using force to eliminate the threat before it can act. If this doctrine was in place in 1938 we could have saved a LOT of problems.

The rest of the world isn't under as direct of a threat as the US is. After 9/11 we now have, for the FIRST TIME in our history, a terrorist group willing to carry out MASSIVE attacks on US soil. Just using airplanes they killed THOUSANDS, and some of the terrorists were learning to fly cropdusters, meanwhile Saddam is amassing chem/bio weapons... That's too much to let stand.

France, Germany, Russia and China have too much of an economic interest in Saddam's regime to support a war. Iraq owes Russia BILLIONS for weapons purchased during the war with Iran, plus all of the oil rights deals that are being cut with these nations. France is brokering missile deals through Syria to supply Iraq with Chinese missiles. Chirac is VERY DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to getting a no confidence vote, his economy is in shambles, and he cannot afford either a war OR to lose the revenue from Saddam. Because of close ties with France, China, Russia and Germany, other countries are waffling, PLUS this threat is mainly against the US (Saddam only stated that the US and Israel are his main targets) so, like the US in 1939, they are saying "It's not my problem". The world is in a recession and wars are expensive.

The US is protecting our own safety, and just because other countries want to "wait and see" if Saddam will give his WMD's to terrorists doesn't me we should. Quite frankly, liberating the people of Iraq is a side benefit. They are good people and I hope they are safe, but internal affairs aren't something I'm gung-ho about the US going to resolve, but Saddams desire to build and use WMDs is enough for me.

DanZ, I WISH those options you mentioned would have passed. I wish war could have been avoided. But since France and Russia said they would veto ANY AND ALL resolutions that included the use of force against Iraq, there was little hope of any resolutions having teeth. Those options WILL NOT WORK unilaterally, becuase without UN legitimacy they are akin to a US occupation of Iraq and would immediately lead to war (Saddam would not let US troops occupy without a fight, and without us taking out C&C plus defense sites we'd be sitting ducks!), so if there is to be war, we need it to be on OUR terms. Therefore our only choices were inaction or war. Sanctions don't work when only one country participates, but war does.

I hope the loss of innocent life is mimimal, and I hope that a liberated Iraq is a better place than an Iraq under Saddam. I KNOW I'll feel much safer knowing that the chem/bio weapons have been FINALLY destroyed or at least are under the control of a non-Stalinist regime that is bent on wiping out the US.

Preemption is a major change in US military doctorine, but I feel it's necessary when the "Smoking gun" that most people want to wait for is going to be an irradiated crater in the middle of NYC.