Will Bush Attack Iran Before Leaving Office?

[blatantninja]

And having a meaningful choice implies the freedom to make that choice, right? Think about it a bit -- it implies all kinds of other things: the freedom to campaign, the freedom of political speech, the absence of coercion about your choices, the freedom to assemble, and so on. In other words, pretty much everything we understand by the fuzzy concept of "freedom" when applied to politics.

As I said, the freedoms you mention are important to making an informed decision, but they aren't required for a democracy. Not saying that I'd want to live in a place without them, but the mechanics of a democracy don't necessarily include those.

I didn't have only surveillance in mind. I was also thinking of the co-optation of the mass media by politically linked corporations, the co-optation of government itself by corporate power, the blatant and almost unchallenged manipulation of opinion, electoral fraud big enough to swing elections, the de facto legalization of torture and indefinite imprisonment without trial, and so on. Not to mention actual acts of policy, such as illegally invading countries that pose no strategic threat to you.

There was nothing illegal about the invasion of Iraq. We (and no one else) are not required to get authorization from the UN before we act. Now, should we? Probably, makes for good policy. As for their strategic threat, they were a strategic threat to our two closest allies in the region, so they were a threat to us as well.

As for all the other things you mention, they have happened before in the US and will likely happen again. Our society has always been one where the pendulum swings back and forth. Probably the biggest difference between what happened in the past and today is simply that communication is so pervasive that more people are aware of them than ever before.

It's rather hard to put things on a continuum of better or worse; the world is so different today than it was in the 1930's or 1950's, or even 1970's. But I do get the feeling that you're making the mistake of closing your eyes to real, serious threats to your freedom simply because they're not the same threats you faced (and eventually surmounted) before.

I'm quite aware of the changes over the past decade or so, and to some extent I have concerns, I'm just not the type that buys into the sky is failing hype we hear from the far left.

 

[Prime Junta]

As I said, the freedoms you mention are important to making an informed decision, but they aren't required for a democracy. Not saying that I'd want to live in a place without them, but the mechanics of a democracy don't necessarily include those.

But you're contradicting yourself -- remove these freedoms and leave elections, and you get Saddam's Iraq. They don't generally forge the election results after the fact in those countries, you know -- they just make sure everyone votes the right way to start with.

There was nothing illegal about the invasion of Iraq. We (and no one else) are not required to get authorization from the UN before we act.

International law defines quite clearly when it is legal to start a war against another country. UN authorization is one such mechanism. There are others, but they didn't apply in the case of Iraq either. (I'm sure V7 can elaborate on this better than me.)

Of course, you can deny the legitimacy of international law altogether, but that's another question.

Now, should we? Probably, makes for good policy. As for their strategic threat, they were a strategic threat to our two closest allies in the region, so they were a threat to us as well.

No, they weren't. Saddam's Iraq was completely securely contained. They weren't even in a position to regain control over their own territory (the Kurdish north), let alone threaten their neighbors -- never even mind Israel.

I'm quite aware of the changes over the past decade or so, and to some extent I have concerns, I'm just not the type that buys into the sky is failing hype we hear from the far left.

It's not falling, to be sure... but it is slowly descending. I'm not as confident as you are that you'll be able to stop it before it squeezes out your freedoms.

 

[POLYGON]

There was nothing illegal about the invasion of Iraq. We (and no one else) are not required to get authorization from the UN before we act. Now, should we? Probably, makes for good policy. As for their strategic threat, they were a strategic threat to our two closest allies in the region, so they were a threat to us as well.

Now one can buy that the reason behind invading iraq was to free the Iraqis but this...
If you're talking threats to Israel Iraq's threat is simplu null compared to Iran's or to Hizbullah and yet the US didn't attack those, or is there simply some other reason( Something black when it's raw and green when produced)

 

[blatantninja]

But you're contradicting yourself -- remove these freedoms and leave elections, and you get Saddam's Iraq. They don't generally forge the election results after the fact in those countries, you know -- they just make sure everyone votes the right way to start with.

No I'm not. Last time I checked, no one was allowed on the ballot against Saddam.

International law defines quite clearly when it is legal to start a war against another country. UN authorization is one such mechanism. There are others, but they didn't apply in the case of Iraq either. (I'm sure V7 can elaborate on this better than me.)

Of course, you can deny the legitimacy of international law altogether, but that's another question.

By that definition, then pretty much 99% of wars are 'illegal.'

No, they weren't. Saddam's Iraq was completely securely contained. They weren't even in a position to regain control over their own territory (the Kurdish north), let alone threaten their neighbors -- never even mind Israel.

You don't need to control in order to threaten.

It's not falling, to be sure... but it is slowly descending. I'm not as confident as you are that you'll be able to stop it before it squeezes out your freedoms.

That's fair.

 

[dteowner]

The bolded part is IMHO a dangerous fallacy. Are you comfortable with having say personal conversations/interactions with your gf/wife monitored? Sure, it probably wont lead to any dangerous consequences and I'm sure there's nothing irregular about it.

If someone wants to make me an unwitting porn star, there's nothing to stop that today. Sure, you could sue/arrest them after the fact, but the horse is already out of the barn at that point. If privacy is your true concern, you're probably "safer" under highly regulated government snooping. I guess our difference of opinion is that I don't see the odds of Uncle Sam deciding to watch me being any higher than the odds of some random wacko doing the same, nor do I see anything Uncle Sam will find being any more damaging than what some random wacko will find.

I agree with you that suspending due process is much more scary. We've discussed that a while back and I stand by my thought that the potential political damage from discovery of making someone "disappear" (particularly with thousands of journalists just dying to break a story like that) will outweigh the potential gains of pulling a stunt like that on Joe Sixpack (or even Hassan al-American).

 

[dteowner]

No, they weren't. Saddam's Iraq was completely securely contained. They weren't even in a position to regain control over their own territory (the Kurdish north), let alone threaten their neighbors -- never even mind Israel.

Tell that to Kuwait.

 

[blatantninja]

Now one can buy that the reason behind invading iraq was to free the Iraqis but this...
If you're talking threats to Israel Iraq's threat is simplu null compared to Iran's or to Hizbullah and yet the US didn't attack those, or is there simply some other reason( Something black when it's raw and green when produced)

While I would agree that Iran or Hizbullah were a greater threat to Israel, neither of them was launching scud missiles into Israel in 1991. And the Iraq threat to Saudi Arabia was very real, especially given the feelings of their population towards their own government.

I've read three theories on why we really went to war that I think each have some merit:

1) In order for Israel to agree to pull back from Golan Heights (IIRC), they wanted Iraq removed as a threat. I realize that Iraq doesn't border Israel, but if I remember right, the theory was that they would need extra forces to guard that border without the strategic value of the Golan Heights and they wanted threats from that general direction removed, which included Iraq. Now, it's been probably 3 years since I read that, so I probably have some of the specifics messed up, but the basic point was that attacking Iraq was tied to Israel making some concessions and it seemed plausible, if not completely probable.

2) If we WERE able to stabilize Iraq and implement a friendly democratic government there, it would be a huge strategic advantage to us in the are as well as lesson our dependence on Saudi Arabia, which while their government is friendly, the overall population is not so much.

3) If number 2 failed, we still get an added benefit that the Sunnis and Shiites would fight each other there, thus creating a situation that would draw in the fanatics of both sides and focus their attention on each other, more so than us. A divided enemy. Sort of a better over there than over here. And to a large extend, we have seen that happening.


We certainly didn't go to war just because Saddam tried to knock off Bush's daddy.

I will say this on the WMD front, I don't know how many people in our government sincerely believed that Saddam had or was trying to acquire WMD's, however Saddam did everything he possibly could to make the world think he DID have them. It made sense for him to do it. We had a chance to take him out in 1991 and didn't. We'd repeatedly shown that outside of the occasional aerial bombing, we didn't look like we were ever going in again. So he wasn't afraid of us, but by making it appear he had them, his neighbors would always be wary of him, thus having them keep out of Iraqi affairs. Unfortunately, Saddam was wrong when Bush got into office.

 

[Prime Junta]

No I'm not. Last time I checked, no one was allowed on the ballot against Saddam.

When was that, out of curiosity? I haven't checked who was on the presidential ballots in Saddam's Iraq, but I wouldn't rule it out that there was someone else on it as well. Everybody knew full well what would happen if they voted wrong.

To pick a clearer example, though, would you consider Iran a democracy? They have more than one candidate on their presidential ballot.

By that definition, then pretty much 99% of wars are 'illegal.'

Indeed.

You don't need to control in order to threaten.

You don't -- but Saddam couldn't even *threaten* the Kurdish North, which was legally a part of Iraq. He was completely contained ever since Gulf War 1. Claiming that he posed a threat to the infinitely richer and better armed Saudi Arabia, let alone the mind-bogglingly more powerful and geographically distant Israel is totally fallacious. I never could understand how the Bush administration managed to sell that to the American public at that time; I find it mind-boggling that there exist otherwise reasonable people who still believe it today.

 

[Prime Junta]

Tell that to Kuwait.

Bring me a Kuwaiti and I'll tell him.

We are talking post-Gulf War 1 here, remember?

 

[Zaleukos]

I agree with you that suspending due process is much more scary. We've discussed that a while back and I stand by my thought that the potential political damage from discovery of making someone "disappear" (particularly with thousands of journalists just dying to break a story like that) will outweigh the potential gains of pulling a stunt like that on Joe Sixpack (or even Hassan al-American).

It should, but political embarassment has unfortunately not prevented or stopped extraordinary renditions in the last six years. The traffic to prisons in ME dictatorships or various friendly -stans is black helicopter level surreal

And there are definitely risks in extensive surveillance. We've had people end up on government black lists due to having the wrong friends as late as in the 70s, with large consequences for their careers. I strongly prefer the government to only collect information on civilians based on a rather restrictive need to know basis, and having certain thresholds for wiretapping/surveillance to prevent blanket use of the techniques.

2) If we WERE able to stabilize Iraq and implement a friendly democratic government there, it would be a huge strategic advantage to us in the are as well as lesson our dependence on Saudi Arabia, which while their government is friendly, the overall population is not so much.

3) If number 2 failed, we still get an added benefit that the Sunnis and Shiites would fight each other there, thus creating a situation that would draw in the fanatics of both sides and focus their attention on each other, more so than us. A divided enemy. Sort of a better over there than over here. And to a large extend, we have seen that happening.

2) isnt that far fetched as a self suggested motivation (but extremely optimistic about facts on the ground). It is quite possible that the talking heads made themselves believe in that after the fact

There is also the ties to the war on terror with pretty credible reports that Rumsfeld wanted to bomb Iraq right after 9/11 even though there was no connection between Osama and a Saddam that was so afraid of the US that he actually had his guest terrorist (Abu Nidal?) murdered in order to appease the US shortly before GW2...

 

[Prime Junta]

1) In order for Israel to agree to pull back from Golan Heights (IIRC), they wanted Iraq removed as a threat. I realize that Iraq doesn't border Israel, but if I remember right, the theory was that they would need extra forces to guard that border without the strategic value of the Golan Heights and they wanted threats from that general direction removed, which included Iraq. Now, it's been probably 3 years since I read that, so I probably have some of the specifics messed up, but the basic point was that attacking Iraq was tied to Israel making some concessions and it seemed plausible, if not completely probable.

Make that "completely ludicrous."

2) If we WERE able to stabilize Iraq and implement a friendly democratic government there, it would be a huge strategic advantage to us in the are as well as lesson our dependence on Saudi Arabia, which while their government is friendly, the overall population is not so much.

Absolutely. That rationale makes complete sense -- except for the small matter of "how," so conveniently ignored by the architects of this war.

3) If number 2 failed, we still get an added benefit that the Sunnis and Shiites would fight each other there, thus creating a situation that would draw in the fanatics of both sides and focus their attention on each other, more so than us. A divided enemy. Sort of a better over there than over here. And to a large extend, we have seen that happening.

Are you serious?

What you've created in Iraq is a terrorist theme park: the biggest, best-equipped recruitment ground and training camp for terrorists and insurgents over every stripe ever. Remember Afghanistan and the mujahideen? You equipped those guys to counter the Soviets. That gave us Al Qaeda. What makes you think that the generation of terrorists cutting their teeth in Iraq now won't turn their attention to juicier targets once the dust settles there?

We certainly didn't go to war just because Saddam tried to knock off Bush's daddy.

Perhaps not, but your real reasons were just about as ludicrous.

I will say this on the WMD front, I don't know how many people in our government sincerely believed that Saddam had or was trying to acquire WMD's, however Saddam did everything he possibly could to make the world think he DID have them. It made sense for him to do it. We had a chance to take him out in 1991 and didn't. We'd repeatedly shown that outside of the occasional aerial bombing, we didn't look like we were ever going in again. So he wasn't afraid of us, but by making it appear he had them, his neighbors would always be wary of him, thus having them keep out of Iraqi affairs. Unfortunately, Saddam was wrong when Bush got into office.

Exactly how did he "make it appear" that he had them? He had made a full and, it turned out, accurate accounting of them to the UN inspectors. The US government was the only party "making it appear" that Saddam had WMD's.

 

[blatantninja]

When was that, out of curiosity? I haven't checked who was on the presidential ballots in Saddam's Iraq, but I wouldn't rule it out that there was someone else on it as well. Everybody knew full well what would happen if they voted wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm

Doesn't appear anyone else appeared on the ballot.

To pick a clearer example, though, would you consider Iran a democracy? They have more than one candidate on their presidential ballot.

Not really because though they have a democratic process for picking their President and such, they have a religious council that actually rules the country. The President of Iran has very little real power as the council can just over rule anything he or their legislature does.

You don't -- but Saddam couldn't even *threaten* the Kurdish North, which was legally a part of Iraq. He was completely contained ever since Gulf War 1. Claiming that he posed a threat to the infinitely richer and better armed Saudi Arabia, let alone the mind-bogglingly more powerful and geographically distant Israel is totally fallacious. I never could understand how the Bush administration managed to sell that to the American public at that time; I find it mind-boggling that there exist otherwise reasonable people who still believe it today.

Iraq still had a large standing and fairly well equipped army (not so much on the air force though). Would he have ever taken over Israel? No. Could he have done a decent amount of damage to them? Certainly. And if Saudi Arabia's armed forces are so stout, why have we had forces based their since the Gulf War? Why did they feel the need to invite our forces in the first place? The fact is that Iraq, outside of the air force, had a better and larger standing army than Saudi Arabia prior to the invasion.

So our choice was to sit in Saudi Arabia for who knows how long, or to take action in the hopes that we might be able to exit the theater at some point.

 

[dteowner]

Bring me a Kuwaiti and I'll tell him.

We are talking post-Gulf War 1 here, remember?

Understand that, but everyone thought Saddam was tame until he marched into Kuwait. You've got the same players and the same global naivite, except this time around Saddam was making no pretense of being an international "nice guy". It's incredibly foolish to assume that anything would have been different, given half a chance somewhere nearby.

 

[Prime Junta]

Understand that, but everyone thought Saddam was tame until he marched into Kuwait. You've got the same players and the same global naivite, except this time around Saddam was making no pretense of being an international "nice guy". It's incredibly foolish to assume that anything would have been different, given half a chance somewhere nearby.

Except for the little detail that post-1991, Iraq was put under a virtual economic blockade, a regime of constant, highly intrusive inspections, strictly enforced no-fly zones both in the north and the south of the country, and very powerful military forces stationed all around it. He had lost a war and was de-fanged. I don't think anything could demonstrate the miserable condition of his military as the ease with which your boys strolled into Baghdad. Trust or naiveté didn't enter into it. He didn't have that half a chance, and nobody was about to give him one either.

(Also, I very much doubt anyone thought Saddam was "tame" pre-1991 either.)

 

[dteowner]

Exactly how did he "make it appear" that he had them? He had made a full and, it turned out, accurate accounting of them to the UN inspectors. The US government was the only party "making it appear" that Saddam had WMD's.

Cut the revisionist BS. He expelled the UN inspectors from his country. There's no transparency there. Plain fact, no opinion needed.

 

[blatantninja]

Make that "completely ludicrous."

You're welcome to your opinion, but it is very plausible.

Absolutely. That rationale makes complete sense -- except for the small matter of "how," so conveniently ignored by the architects of this war.

Ohh, I'll completely agree that the execution of the post-invasion plan is a perfect example of a SNAFU, but that doesn't mean that the premise for the invasion isn't valid.

Are you serious?

What you've created in Iraq is a terrorist theme park: the biggest, best-equipped recruitment ground and training camp for terrorists and insurgents over every stripe ever. Remember Afghanistan and the mujahideen? You equipped those guys to counter the Soviets. That gave us Al Qaeda. What makes you think that the generation of terrorists cutting their teeth in Iraq now won't turn their attention to juicier targets once the dust settles there?

Ok, first off, little history lesson, we did NOT equip the guys that became Al Qaeda or the Taliban. That is a complete myth. Bin Laden never worked with the CIA or anyone else from the US government. The groups we equipped were what became the Northern Alliance that opposed the Taliban.

One of the most important things for any power is that no other power rises to counter it. The prospect of a unified (either politically or ideologically) middle east is far more terrifying than a civil war in any of those countries. Will some of the people fighting in Iraq turn to 'juicier targets' after the war ends there? Probably some will, but no more than would if we had done nothing. Remember we were getting bombed in Saudi Arabia and Yemen and attacks were planned against domestic targets long before we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

Perhaps not, but your real reasons were just about as ludicrous.

You're welcome to that opinion, even if it is completely wrong.

Exactly how did he "make it appear" that he had them? He had made a full and, it turned out, accurate accounting of them to the UN inspectors. The US government was the only party "making it appear" that Saddam had WMD's.

Bullshit and you know it. He repeatedly threw out inspectors. He moved trucks (probably will nothing in them) just before inspectors showed up so that they'd hear about it, but be able to prove nothing. Again and again the inspectors told the UN that they were being stifled. He wanted everyone to think he might them as defensive mechanism. Instead, he gave us the excuse Bush was looking for to invade.

 

[Prime Junta]

Not really because though they have a democratic process for picking their President and such, they have a religious council that actually rules the country. The President of Iran has very little real power as the council can just over rule anything he or their legislature does.

Exactly -- they don't have meaningful choice in their elections.

And, again, in order to have meaningful choice in elections, a country requires political freedom. Just having multiple names on a ballot means nothing, if only one guy is allowed to campaign, or you know you'll get shot, imprisoned, or even just plain ol' fired from your job if you vote for the wrong guy, if one candidate owns all the media, or so on and so forth.

Democracy. Implies. Freedom.

Iraq still had a large standing and fairly well equipped army (not so much on the air force though). Would he have ever taken over Israel? No. Could he have done a decent amount of damage to them? Certainly.

Are you for real?

There's one pretty big country between Iraq and Israel. Saddam had no means at his disposal to get any forces anywhere near Israel. He may or may not have had a few rockets that just might reach that far and just might be able to hit a city-sized target, but as 1991 showed, they could do virtually no damage -- and he knew full well that trying anything like that would invite massive retaliation from Israel and the US.

And if Saudi Arabia's armed forces are so stout, why have we had forces based their since the Gulf War? Why did they feel the need to invite our forces in the first place? The fact is that Iraq, outside of the air force, had a better and larger standing army than Saudi Arabia prior to the invasion.

So our choice was to sit in Saudi Arabia for who knows how long, or to take action in the hopes that we might be able to exit the theater at some point.

@blatantninja, please stop. I'm starting to feel embarrassed on your behalf.

 

[blatantninja]

Except for the little detail that post-1991, Iraq was put under a virtual economic blockade,

That was violated left and right

a regime of constant, highly intrusive inspections

That were consistantly prevented from finishing their jobs, tossed out, etc.

, strictly enforced no-fly zones both in the north and the south of the country,

About the only thing that did work.

and very powerful military forces stationed all around it.

If they were so powerful, why did we have to bring in so many more forces to do the actual invasion?

He had lost a war and was de-fanged. I don't think anything could demonstrate the miserable condition of his military as the ease with which your boys strolled into Baghdad.

So, then I guess he wasn't a threat in the first war either since we pretty much walked over his forces then as well? Maybe we should have left him alone then too?

 

[blatantninja]

Exactly -- they don't have meaningful choice in their elections.

And, again, in order to have meaningful choice in elections, a country requires political freedom. Just having multiple names on a ballot means nothing, if only one guy is allowed to campaign, or you know you'll get shot, imprisoned, or even just plain ol' fired from your job if you vote for the wrong guy, if one candidate owns all the media, or so on and so forth.

Democracy. Implies. Freedom.

And none of that has happened in the US, so we're back to the point that we're not even close to being unDemocratic.

Are you for real?

Are you? You seem to have no grasp of the politics of the region.

@blatantninja, please stop. I'm starting to feel embarrassed on your behalf.

Funny, I feel the same thing for you. You seem to have pretty much bought the left's anti-war arguments hook, line and sinker with no rational thought on your own part.

 

[Prime Junta]

You're welcome to your opinion, but it is very plausible.

About as plausible as the Easter Bunny hypothesis.

I'm done here; I simply don't have the energy. I could take your posts apart point by point, but it's so much easier to write bullshit off the top of your head that I could never keep up with you.