[Ypsilanti Undead]

First off, please pardon me for starting a discussion that I don't have time to keep up with!


Thanks for the response Brian. Yes the articles have several weaknesses. I was really just trying to draw attention to the parts that cite specific documents; a lot of the rest is, as you point out, editorial speculation.

Originally posted by Nittany Dodgers
First, the article states that Bush insinuated that Saddam has nukes. Bush never said that.

Very true. What he did do, a few months ago, was assert that Saddam was actively trying to obtain them, and provided forged documents as evidence.

Bush is stuck in the rut of thought that he has to link Saddam to terrorism in order for the American people to support the war.

I think it's just as much about convincing the UN. According to the UN charter, we wouldn't need explicit Security Council approval to start a war if (and only if) we are defending ourselves from an imminent threat. The terrorist link was the only plausible way Bush could make the argument that Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S.

That said, I think it is entirely possible that the Bush administration has knowledge of links, and are conceiling the evidence for strategic purposes.

This, I think, is establishing an exteremely dangerous precedent. If we take as valid the argument that we can start a war without explicit approval of the Security Council AND without proving that we are defending ourselves from an imminent threat, then consider the consequences: how could we diplomatically refute any other country's right to invade any other country? Using this logic: all Saddam needed to make his invasion of Kuwait legitimate was to claim he had intelligence that Kuwait posed a security threat to Iraq. It also opens the door for all those countries who claim the existence of Isreal is a threat to the region. Or for India to start a war with Pakistan. The net effect, in my opinion, is to render the UN impotent as a diplomatic tool for international security.

As far as his claims on democracy in the region, I don't think any one person can tell the future crystal clear. He may sincerely hold out hope that by installing a democratic government in Iraq, it will spread. I don't think a beurocratic report "proves" that hope false.

I would find the idea of our president ignoring the advice of his intelligence agencies on this issue to be pretty alarming

As far as his veto of the international criminal court, would you seriously like to subject our military leaders to a court we have no control over? Good God is that idea insane.

Do you think the Nuremburg trials were insane?

The theory that this war is going to start a nuclear arms race is rediculous. Where's the proof to that assertion, or should we just take this writers conjectures as facts? That sounds more than a little hipocritical considering the thrust of this article.

The writer is clearly speculating, just as I was speculating that diplomacy of international security will break down, and just as the White House is speculating that our version of democracy will succeed in Iraq and spread throughout the region.

As to the whole "unprovoked attack" notion, I belive we are justified in enforcing the terms of the cease fire from the Gulf War. I think we have ample evidence that Saddam has no intention of disarming (funny how Saddam was destroying his al-Samoud missles, but yet just this week he seems to have some ready to fire).

I think the UN resolutions which constituted the Gulf War cease fire contain no language authorizing war as means of enforcement, and that using war to enforce them without the explicit approval of the Security Council is a violation of the UN charter. And Saddam had only destroyed a fraction of his al-Samoud missles, in compliance with the schedule prescribed by Hans Blix.

All right, I really have to get to work. Thanks, Brian, for making a thoughtful and considered reply. And I hope there's never any doubt that I think Saddam is a despicable tyrant; I think getting him out of Kuwait was justified; and I think it's a damn shame that we didn't support the uprising that would have overthrown him after the Gulf War. But we have no business going in there right now without UN approval, it's a violation of international law, and it's not worth the price of blood, treasure, and international stability.

And please don't doubt for a second that I support the troops. They're not in a position to question their leadership, I respect their decision to serve, and I wish them all health and a safe return.