Semi-Daily Journal

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=288046&contrassID=1&subContrassID=8&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

So, something involving WMD is already afoot.

However, you don't need unprotected Iraqi ordnance to have a WMD nightmare. Both chemical and biological weapons could be made elsewhere with little trouble (excepting a few specific bio's like small pox where you need access to the limited existing strains).

It is the humans with the will and the knowledge, not the pre-existing material, that are a problem.

The spin continues.

With all due respect - how long can the neocons keep this baby rolling? A suitcase full of Anthrax? Being delivered by boat? Are you sure it wasn't one of those duct tape/Balsa wood drones? You know - the ones using modified 'weedwacker' engines.

For the love of God!

And aren't we lucky that Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft have done such a great job of 'tightening everything up.' Otherwise, we'ld be sitting ducks for them crazy Islamofascists. Think about all the pain, anguish and stress we've suffered while killing people in the third world nations they call home. This liberation thing is a big responsibility. Without it - Afghanistan wouldn't be moving forward with the pipeline - or returning to within 10% of the opium production it was at prior to the Taliban's ban of it (can you believe the Mullahs had the gall to hold the world's heroin users hostage). And now we are paving the way to privatized Iraqi oil - for the Iraqis, of course (and let's not forget about the geo-political windfall). This is the burden of being the greatest democracy on earth - and it's a price we have to pay. And although we're committed - we can't let our guard down. The fanatics are out there. And they're waiting for the right moment to hit us.

By the way - nice touch with the Haaretz 'report.' Egypt's pathetic contribution to the 'clash of civilizations' aside - how does a suitcase full of 'anthrax' qualify as anything more than a 'weapon of continuing disinformation?' Does anyone understand the complexity and inefficiency of this substance? Traveling by sea? In a suitcase? And that's without considering the difficulty of 'weaponization' and delivery.

And more importantly - are you all asleep at the wheel? Has everyone forgotten the 'State of the Union' Address where President Bush described Saddam's weapons as:

- 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin
- 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent
- 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents

Give your heads a shake - he was lying!

And not only did he lie then - but Bush made this claim after months of bolstering the U.S./UK 'position' by using fabricated 'intelligence', forged documents and the surveillance of their fellow-Security Council members. They've been lying the entire time. Is it any surprise that Bush is quoted (CNN) in Feb. 2002 as saying "F__k Saddam - we're taking him out." Eight months before 1441 came into being. Think about it...what does the U.S. have to do to 'wake up' the fanatical terrorists that it claims are such an imminent threat? Where are they? There's more than a billion of them on the planet - what are they waiting for? A better opportunity? The additional motivation of thousands of dead in country number 3?

Absolute nonsense.

And now we quietly sit by as the media does it's job of 'revealing' Al Qaeda links, 'unearthing' secret WMD documents and repeatedly announcing 'what may be WMDs' - but never really are.

When will the people realize that this whole mission to 'disarm Saddam' and the preemptive attack on innocent Iraqis was a colossal manipulation - and a criminal act?

I am far from the first to think of this - is Iraq just a better location from which to project power in the Middle East? Could that be a major motivation for the war? Saudi Arabia has now officially invited us to leave, and we have accepted. The officials US position is that troops will withdraw as soon as an Iraqi administration is in place and working smoothly, but at the same time, we are shopping for long-term basing rights in Iraq. Saudi Arabia does not abut Iran or Syria - Iraq does. It also gets us closer to the flank that Turkey has long protected. Turkey has been a reliable ally, but having bases in Iraq takes some of the worry out of relying on Turkey. Saudi Arabia was in a position to deny the US the use of its own bases for attacking other Muslim nations. I doubt Iraq will be.

"the masses are asses". No doubt a sentiment shared by Saddam Hussein. If one really has the welfare of "innocent Iraqis" as a foremost concern, please explain how their continued rule by Saddam Hussein was in their best interest.

Will Allen: "If one really has the welfare of "innocent Iraqis" as a foremost concern, please explain how their continued rule by Saddam Hussein was in their best interest."

But first let's hear the President explain why he thought it was necessary to lie about imminent security threats to convince most of us that it was in our interest to promote the welfare of innocent Iraqis.

"I had to lie to you because I know you wouldn't have done the right thing otherwise. You cannot be motivated to act on principles alone, so you must be frightened into supporting your principles indirectly."

Now that you put it that way Mr President, thanks for safely steering us through another moral and ethical minefield!

I carry no brief for George W. Bush, but it needs to be acknowledged that nearly everyone, including the French, Russians, and Hans Blix thought it very likely that Hussein was in possession of chemical and biological weapons, and it still remains to be seen whether he did or not, or if they were transferred out of the country. I don't know, and neither do you. My point, however, was the intellectual dishonesty in opposing this war out of concern for "innocent Iraqis". If one believes this war was a bad idea, fine, that case can still be made, although it requires that one predict bad post-war outcomes that are far from certain. Who knows? Maybe all sorts of bad outcomes will be the result. Then again, maybe the post-war outcomes will be largely positive. The problem with predicting the future is that, if one does it long enough, one will eventually be proven foolish. To say, however, that "innocent Iraqis" would have been better off under Hussein's tyranny, is the statement of an idiot or a moral bankruptcy, and no, the state of George W. Bush's moral character does not affect that truth.

Will Allen: "To say, however, that "innocent Iraqis" would have been better off under Hussein's tyranny, is the statement of an idiot or a moral bankruptcy, and no, the state of George W. Bush's moral character does not affect that truth."

Indeed. Fortunately I haven't noticed many commentators or critics making this statement, regardless of their idiocy or moral bankruptcy. Unfortunately, I have noticed other commentators making the claim that questions about the Administration's motives for the war (and its prosecution) implies support for Hussein.

It IS too soon to know the outcome, with regard to WMDs and the constitution of the New Iraq. And who knows what will become of the UN or even NATO (as France, Belgium, Germany and Russia meet today to discuss defense arrangements independent of NATO). The potential ramifications of the war spread far and wide. But it's not too soon to start asking about the unfulfilled promise of Iraqi WMDs. The Administration insisted they knew conclusively that the Iraqi program was massive and dangerous. Those strong claims, the legal and moral justification of the war, are now presented as mis-emphasis.

Means matter in democratic governments. They're more important than ends. If we agree that overthrowing Hussein, protecting Iraqi innocents, and spreading democracy were legitimate motivations for war, why didn't the Administration make this case on the merits?

Will Allen: "Who knows? Maybe all sorts of bad outcomes will be the result. Then again, maybe the post-war outcomes will be largely positive."

So this is how we should decide whether to start a war costing thousands of lives? Let's try it, maybe we'll like it!

Will it looks like you are saying that because Saddam Hussein is now gone that it is alright that we have been lied to. Is that what you mean? If the case is so compellng, why lie about it?

Hussein was a nasty piece of work but largely neutered by sanctions and constant bombing. There are many countries with WMDs, with sorely oppressed populations or that are harboring terrorists. Still more are in breach of UN resolutions. Compile a top five countries on any of those scores and Iraq won't be on it. The only possible conclusion is that the public story is neither plausible nor the actual justification.

Just to pad this out a bit: Iraq might have hosted terrorists but not on the scale of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Palestine, Colombia or even the UK and US. Iraq wouldn't be first on my list if I was looking for nuclear weapons.

I don't mean that to be a particularly dark conspiracy. There may be practical reasons for invading Iraq, opportunity both at home and in terms of Iraq's military standing, need for a successor to Saudi Arabia as an ally in the gulf, preempting a catastrophic collapse of Iraq and wsuig free for all. An end to the highly unsatisfactory sanctions and containment regime. All arguments that I might buy.

However the responsibilities involved and the lack of clarity and the complicated consequences smack of imperialism. The problem with imperialism is not the malice of the imperialist but the lack of accountability and the corruption of power.

The lies are also a clear breach of democratic accountability. As a result I am less likely to b le to make a properly informed decision about these and future actions. For example if I had $100bn to spend on foreign interventions would I do best to spend it on peacemaking in DR Congo? Liberating Cuba? Solving the Palestinian problem? Debt relief? A bounty on a cure for Malaria, Aids, Influenza or TB? Preemptively stabilizing Indonesia? $100bn is a lot of money. Maybe it would be better just not to spend it at all.

Both the imperialism and the abuse of the democratic process are legitimate objects of dissent and to be worried about these doesn't make me a Saddam apologist.

I don't know what you are reading LHP, but I read all sorts of commentators prior to this war stating their opposition due to their concern for the broad Iraqi populace, and yes, such commentators were either idiots or moral bankruptcies. As to your proposed negative outcomes, if the UN and NATO have become forums for actors such as the French to pursue their perceived self-interest, to the detriment of the United States' perceived self-interest, then the U.S. should deal with those forums on that basis.

The UN and NATO should not be, for the United States, ends unto themselves. They should be utilized for the United States to pursue the United States' interests, and to say simply that because NATO or the UN has been weakened it is proof of a mis-step in U.S. policy is to engage in the logical fallacy that the U.S has complete control of the international environment and the other actors in that environment. If the French and other actors view the U.N. primarily as a means by which to attack the U.S. (which seems to be the primary French foreign policy objective), then the U.N is going to be weakened, and there isn't much the U.S. can do to change that, unless the U.S. wishes to work against it's own interests.

Finally, as to this Administration's motives, I begin with the assumption that all political actors are dishonest. Every last one. From FDR's dishonest statements leading up to WWII (not to mention his lies when selling the New Deal), To Wilson's lies prior to to WWI, to the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, Vietnam, the Great Society, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, etc., etc., ad nauseum, American political leaders have been dishonest regarding motivations and intentions, on both domestic and foreign policy issues. All politicians are liars, most voters have the maturity to understand this, and it is ironically those most intensely interested in politics who are most suprised or disappointed that politicians are lying to them. Anybody who was motivated to pay any attention to what was being said prior to this war understood that there was likely a collection of motivations behind the desire of this Administration to wage this war. The need to have simplistic slogans, both pro and con, is typical of human nature, but does not render false the more complex truth. It is enough for me to know that Saddam's regime was horribly evil, it's removal gave a great opportunity for the people of Iraq to improve their lot, and it also utterly upset the regional status quo that had become, for cultural, historical, and economic reasons, entirely too dangerous to the people of the United States.

Will it all work out positively? Probably not, for hardly anything works out 100% positively. Given what the likely outcome of a continuance of the status quo was, however, I considered it a risk worth taking. Those that believe otherwise should simply make their case, instead of hiding behind obnoxious bloviations regarding their outrage as to what this war has meant to welfare of the Iraqi popoulation.

Jack, I never said that all of those who opposed this war were Saddam apologists, although it is undeniably true that to oppose this war meant that one must have also logically stated that one was willing to tolerate Saddam's continued rule. What I said was that those who opposed this war due to their supposed concern for the welfare of the Iraqi population were either idiots or moral bankruptcies. Such people remind of moral bankruptcies like then-recent Democratic Presidential nominee George McGovern, who said approving things about the Khmer Rouge, while Pol Pot's band of thugs was slaughtering millions. One might have been opposed to further U.S. intervention in Southeast Asia, given the hash that had been made out of it in the preceding 15 years, but opposition to further intervention did not require that one kiss the butcher's ass, which is what McGovern did.

Will Allen wrote: "To say, however, that "innocent Iraqis" would have been better off under Hussein's tyranny, is the statement of an idiot or a moral bankruptcy"

I agree with the obvious point that Saddam's removal would seem to be a good thing for Iraqi civilians, but we should remind ourselves that the situation is perhaps not as simple as we'd like to believe.

See, for instance: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-war-women27apr27001431,1,3750581.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dworld%2Dmanual

Quoting: "Like many Iraqi women, the lively 24-year-old, who has a degree in math and statistics from a private college in Baghdad, is happy about the end of Saddam Hussein's rule, but she worries that the change in government could lead to a dramatic erosion of women's freedoms."

Surely, Will, you'd not call this innocent Iraqi woman "moral[ly] bankrupt," though she wonders if perhaps she'll regret Hussein's fall?

One would assume not. The same would apply to those worried on her behalf, a group to which I'm sure you belong.

The jury is out on whether the war will ultimately be a good thing for the Iraqi people. Recall that the Taliban were initially hailed as saviours from the lawlessness that was post-Cold War Afghanistan. We know how that turned out. One hopes that from a civilian's perspective the new Iraqi authority will prove to be vastly superior to Hussein's regime, but we will have to wait and see to be sure.

SqueakyRat, if you are under the impression that the status quo was not costing thousands of lives, or that this Vale of Tears affords us the luxury of certainty, you need to reacquaint yourself with reality.

True enough, Ryan. The point is, however, that absent Hussein's forcible removal, the Iraqi people had exactly 0% chance of having a decent life, at least for several decades. Saddam's heirs were every bit as committed to butchery as he, if not more so, and sitting on top of the world's 2nd largest oil reserves meant that they were largely immune to anything but military removal. Hell, the whack-job in North Korea has no source of natural wealth and can still maintain his regime of terror, although North Korea's utter poverty may mean that it is susceptible to change on a more rapid basis without military intervention. The Iraqi population now at least have a chance, which they would not have received absent this war.

Though I am elated that Iraq's vicious vicious government is gone, I am very concerned that either we had faulty intelligence about Iraqi weapons or the subject was raised mearly as a means of rallying support for a war. British intelligence seems to have been merely copied from papers by Iraqi exiles. What of our intelligence? If the weapons issue was a means of rallying support, I find that highly disturbing for a democratic country.

//
[...]
The UN and NATO should not be, for the United States, ends unto themselves. They should be utilized for the United States to pursue the United States' interests, [...]
//

-- the lack of comment is intentional --

DSW

Well, Antoni, if you think for a moment that other nations do not utilize the U.N. to pursue their own interests, you really need to cut down on the consumption of psychoactive mushrooms.

It is in the interest of most people in the world that the UN works well, in the same way that in is in the interest on the citizenry that their town council works well. Now *your* posture is the one of an outlaw that want to impose its will on the rest of the people.

So mr Will Allen, the USA went to Iraq to steal it. Chirac is right and Blair is a fool.

DSW

"One hopes that from a civilian's perspective the new Iraqi authority will prove to be vastly superior to Hussein's regime, but we will have to wait and see to be sure."

Gosh, and we will all have to wait until reaching eighty years old to make sure of not growing another two feet in height! Employing this line of logic, there is perhaps a chance that even I can humiliate Shaq O’Neal on a basketball court.

The odds are probably about .9999999999% certain that the Iraqi people are far better off today than under the totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein. It is ludicrous to assert otherwise.

Back to WMD -- let's look at what they -DID- rather than getting all hung up on what they said.

Our Iraq operation immediately secured the oil fields and the oil ministry building. They carefully planned this, and sent the troops and equipment necessary to accomplish this.

Our Iraq operation did -NOT- secure suspected WMD sites (or anything other than the oil fields). They did -NOT- send the number of troops necessary to acomplish this. They -STILL- have not sent the necessary forces or equipment to secure suspected WMD sites.

The Iraq operation also did -NOT- send the forces necessary to secure and protect the PEOPLE of Iraq.

Looking at what they are doing rather than what they are saying it becomes clear that THE OIL WAS THE ONLY PRIORITY OR CONCERN.

Sometimes you just have to step back and separate yourself from the fog of words they lay down to obscure what they are doing. To figure out what they are DOING, you need to look at what they are DOING not what they are saying.

The analogy between a town council and the UN is particularly stupid, in that a town council can be regularly held accountable, and have it's members removed when found lacking. The UN, in contrast, is substantially comprised of wholly unaccountable murderers,thugs, and crooks. At the UN, for instance, it is considered business as ususal for an entity such as Libya to chair the Human Rights Commission. Also, the existence of a a town council presupposes widely shared values and norms. The UN is a body in which the likes of Robert Mugabe has the same legitimacy as, say, John Howard, and other actors, like Chirac, help the likes of Mugabe maintain their legitimacy. Imagine a city council in which Joseph Stalin held a permanent seat, immune to recall, and had as much legitimacy as regularly elected councilman who did not resort to mass murder to maintain power, and one has a better picture regarding the reality of the UN. Does this mean that the UN is devoid of value, or that it should be discarded? No, but I never said otherwise. It is undeniably the case, however, that the UN is a body that is utilized by it's individual members to puruse those members' individual interests, and it is not sufficient to say that policy x cannot be pursued if it weakens the UN, for such an idiotically simplistic assertion means that every unaccountable murderer, thug, and crook, and those that support them, or simply those that are in turn ruthlessly pursuing their own interests, has, in essence, a veto over any U.S. policy. Perhaps it is your belief that Vladimir Putin or Robert Mugabe should have such power, but it is doubtful that a large percentage of the citizenry of the U.S. would concur.

Your last sentence can only be characterized as fatuous, given that Chirac would fellate Saddam Hussein to get another contract for Total, and it is Saddam Hussein who has stolen the Iraqi people blind.

>> The odds are probably about .9999999999% certain that the Iraqi people are far better off today than under the totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein. It is ludicrous to assert otherwise.

I'm sure you think that most Afghans are far better off now, too. Or at least, because the minority clique of poppy growers are greatly enriched, it means that Afghans are on average better off.

Iraqis today are having to deal with the aftermath of war. In terms of day-to-day existence, their lives are worse off than under Saddam. That will, with hope, change quickly. But it is ludicrous to imply that in strictly experiential terms, being freed from tyranny into a combination of anarchy and large-scale deprivation actually feels like 'far better off'. There are thousands upon thousands of Russian pensioners who can also testify to this.

(If you want to test this out, David, wait until Bush gets kicked out of the White House, and then explode a bomb in the vicinity of your home, ensuring that it cuts off electricity and water supplies. Then see if you feel 'far better off' that you've been liberated from your current imbecilic leaders. But of course, your idea of 'freedom' is, in fact, the freedom to suffer under Bush and his cronies.)

"...it needs to be acknowledged that nearly everyone, including the French, Russians, and Hans Blix thought it very likely that Hussein was in possession of chemical and biological weapons, and it still remains to be seen whether he did or not, or if they were transferred out of the country. I don't know, and neither do you."

It's good to see that the French, Russians and Hans Blix have not lost all credibility…I think?

Will - put down the Times, switch off CNN and peel back the duct tape. The 'war' is over - and the 'danger' has passed. You're okay. Breathe.

If Saddam was such a dangerous and unpredictable force - why did he continually pass up the opportunity to use that 'massive arsenal'? What was he waiting for?

1) His army fought a long and bloody war with Iran.

No anthrax, No VX, No Nukes.

2) His army invaded Kuwait.

No anthrax, No VX, No Nukes.

3) He was pulverized by U.S. forces while retreating from Kuwait (ever see the ‘highway of death footage’).

No anthrax, No VX, No Nukes.

4) His country was rained down upon during continued U.S. bombardment.

No anthrax, No VX, No Nukes.

5) while 'launching' scuds at Israel.

No anthrax, No VX, No Nukes.

6) His country was bombed for a decade (the highly illegal ‘no-fly’ zone).

No anthrax, No VX, No Nukes.

7) And now during the Gulf War - part deux.

No anthrax, No VX, No Nukes.

???

Let me guess - he was hoping for leniency at his 'trial'? Regrouping for another crack at world domination? Maybe saving it for a 'rainy day?' For the love of God! How can you speak of ‘intellectual dishonesty’ ? And how long must we tolerate the killing of thousands of people based on the undeniability of a hunch?

To suggest that an administration that 'lobbied' for this murderous action years before they came to power 'believed' that Saddam was an imminent threat with WMDs is disingenuous - and your logic is criminal.

"If one really has the welfare of "innocent Iraqis" as a foremost concern, please explain how their continued rule by Saddam Hussein was in their best interest."

Will - feel free to delude yourself. Repeated mention of 'cleanly shaven' Afghan men and women trading in 'Burqas for bikinis' might bring comfort to your soul - but does little for those of us adhering to truth, morality and principle. And although it has given former Unocal advisor Hamed Karzai the 'legitimacy' to spread freedom - American-style, the 500 Chalabi thugs taking a break from looting to cheer U.S. forces toppling a statue does little for Baghdad's 5 million terrified citizens - still cowering in their 'soon to be democratic' homes.

The tyranny of the greatest democracy on Earth may force good people to include the wholly-defensive qualifier 'not to say that Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator' - but refusing to recognize a pre-'91 Iraq where the 'butcher of Baghdad' felt the need to support the best healthcare system in the Arab world, a strong educational infrastructure and a gross per capita income that was the envy of the region is unintelligent. Maybe 12 years of targeting water treatment facilities, food production plants and ‘innocent civilians’ escaped your 'scrutiny' - but surely the decade of strangulating sanctions must have made you wonder. Did you ever question whether the chlorine and industrial equipment the not-quite-yet innocent civilians were denied might have improved lives - maybe even saved a few hundred thousand? Did any of this really target the regime? 'Winners' of your ilk have always found war crimes to be 'touchy' subject.

And forgive me if I've compromised a framework of understanding that is based on lies and deceit - based on Condoleeza doing the circuit to explain how Saddam had the tongues cut out of his opponents mouths - or the 'intelligence' that compelled Forbes to include Saddam on their wealthiest people list – - or even your twisted understanding of what freedom and democracy are really about - but you obviously have no idea of how corrupt your argument is.

And as you denounce the thoughtful efforts of people who truly believe in something better - I wonder how you reconcile the thousands of lives lost in this most recent phase of pax Americana.

And as we digest the news that Philip Carroll (former chief executive of the US division of Royal Dutch/Shell) has been tapped to head the 15-strong board of international advisers that will run the Iraqi oil industry like an American corporation - what is to be made of the 'innocent civilian' protestors that were killed by U.S. forces in Mosul earlier this month?
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/16/mosul_dead030416

or the almost 100 that were shot on Monday night?
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051125578932&call_pageid=1045739058633&col=1045739057805

or even the ones shot today?
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030430_317.html

"My point, however, was the intellectual dishonesty in opposing this war out of concern for 'innocent Iraqis'."

'Intellectual dishonesty'…I guess we agree...sort of.

As suspected, someone who names himself (and shares the opinion with Saddam) "the masses are asses" is a Saddam apologist, and runs up the flagpole the notion that things were just great in Iraq (those Kurds lying in the corner aren't dead, they're just sleeping!) prior to '91. Say, you don't fly down to Havana occasionally to kiss Castro's ass too, do you? Yeah, if it weren't for the United States, the Iraqis would have been just fine; Uday could have fed and raped his slaves, WHILE gold-plating his AK-47s, all at once! People of your ilk have a long tradition of apologizing for tyrants, from covering up Stalin's genocide, to labeling Mao an "agrarian reformer", to praising Castro, lying about the Khmer Rouge, and now Hussein, because the only principle you adhere to is that the United States is the greatest source of evil in the world, so anything that is in opposition to the United States must be defended. You actually believe that a government such as Saddam Hussein's is morally superior to that of the United States. Thank you for being so forthright.

An invasion that is justified ex ante on the existence of massive quantities of chemical and biological weapons (not to mention nukes) cannot be rationalized as a war for democracy ex post.

The informed consent of citizens and their representatives is critically important to the democratic process. Lying to build political support for a war violates that consent and should lead to serious consequences for those responsible.

I would like to point to Henry Waxman's open letter on the topic of the President's use of forged documents in the State of the Union Address. Apparently, Mr. Bush was aware that the documents were fake when he presented them to the US public.

http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm

You're welcome.

Will,
how many eggs do we have to break to make this particular omlette? Was 9/11 good because it ultimately lead to the liberation of Iraq?

As for it being certain 99.9999999% certain that things will be better, well it isn't yet. Just because the good guys take you out of the frying pan doesn't mean you will end up somewhere better. As the man says, ask a Russian pensioner (or Jeffrey Sachs).

Will-
Your dualistic thinking leads you to make conclusions about others and their opinions that are unwarranted. In your mind, there are 2 options. Many of us see numerous positives and negatives that result from the way the war was rationalized to the way it was conducted to the way peace is being established. Getting beyond dualism will allow you to have a new perspective that will allow you to examine the Iraq war and learn from it. What were the mistakes? What did we do right? What were the good consequences? What were the bad consequences? Only by exploring the grey areas can you go beyond the superficial understanding that can be obtained by adolescent dualism.

Few would disagree that Saddam was bad and needed to go. Few would disagree that the appeasement and political support for Saddam by the Reagan and Bush I administrations was bad foreign policy and ultimately bad for the Iraqi people.

Few would disagree that 10 years of sanctions were not the optimal policy for the Iraqi people, that a more permanent solutions was needed. Many would disagree over how far the US should have gone in 1991.

Most would agree that the Taliban needed to be replaced. Most would agree that the recent events in Afghanistan are distrubing, with the country in control of the warlords again.

Many disagree that war was either necessary or the best way to remove Saddam from power.

Many disagree that it was a good idea for the US to anatagonize our former allies and shun their help to manage the peace.

Few would disagree that the war has created hardship for the Iraqi people.

Few would disagree that many innocent Iraqis were killed or injured during the war. While many would disagree whether Iraq will be better off or worse off 10 years from now, few would disagree, that at least temporarily, many Iraqis are worse off (dead, injured, orphaned, out of a job, etc.)

Many would disagree that combat troops make good peace keepers.

No one knows what the final outcome will be 10 years from now. Will Iraq be a flowering democracy or the next Algeria?

As with any war or any new political system there will be winners and losers.

RE: Arslan's original comment, Haaretz's report of an 'Egyptian ship suspected of carrying anthrax for terror attack' and weapons of continuing disinformation

Breaking News:

Anthrax didn't kill Canada-bound sailor
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051643346012&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037

It's amazing how we manage to 'tip-toe' around a pattern of behaviour (government, media, pundits, etc) that should have us screaming from the rooftops.

bakho, since I clearly stated that the results were yet unclear, that the results would not be 100% positive, and furthermore, I clearly agreed with Ryan's remarks that it was theoretically possible that the Iraqis could suffer a net negative outcome, your attribution to me of dualism can only be taken as proof that you did not read what I wrote, but instead responded to what you wished that I had wrote.

What I wrote was that those who opposed this war on the basis of the suffering it would cause the Iraqi civilian population were either idiots or moral bankruptcies. This is the case because it ignores the suffering entailed in living under Hussein's continued tyranny for several more decades, and yes, it is undeniably true that, absent military removal, Hussein and his heirs would have continued their reign of terror for decades. The people of Iraq now have a chance to greatly improve their lot. Absent this war they would have zero chance.

Some bring up the example of Russian pensioners who have been made worse off as a result of a tyrannical regime's fall, as an argument for maintaining tyranny, which is just as wrong-headed, in that it ignores the tens of millions slaughtered to sustain the regime that paid the Russian pensioner. If we want to count eggs, Hussein has broken far more to make his omelettes than the U.S. did last month in making theirs,and Hussein would have broken far more in the ensuing decades. In order for one argue otherwise, one must make the paternalistic and condescending assumption that the Iraqis are incapable of anything but government by savagery. Now, it does not suprise me that someone who goes by the moniker "the masses are asses" concurs with this assumption, but I think most Iraqis might differ.

What bakho said. This is an extremely well-worn topic, and I had almost vowed not to get dragged into another discussion, but Mr. Allen and Mr. Thomson, you must understand that demonizing critics of US policy in the region will not serve US interests. Now we are engaged in a process which has always been very challenging to all democratic nations which have attempted it, viz., the occupation and reconstruction of another country with no legal recourse for abuses. You have a lot of faith that Americans--as opposed to, say, Soviets--will do a [mostly] honest, [relatively] decent job of it. As God is my witness I hope you are correct. But you do understand that our abity to do so depends almost entirely on oversite by people who are occasionally accused of being "apologists for Saddam," "defenders of Stalin," "admirers of Mao," and so forth.

Look, my source of info on Saddam's state is "Republic of Fear" by Kanan Makiyah (AKA Samir Khalid). This is as hostile a treatment of the Ba'thist regime as you could ask for. And my opinions of Mao Zedong and Stalin are pretty harsh as well. However, I do not denounce anyone who supplies information contrary to what I think--especially in cases where the other has firsthand knowledge of the matter.

Was Saddam a dreadful leader? I don't question it. Did he terrorize the entire Iraqi population? Are the vast majority of Iraqis suddenly relieved from an intense, personal threat which affected nearly everyone? I imagine so, but if someone who knows says otherwise, I won't smack him, I'm open to countervailing evidence. I think like most awful governments, most people living under it can indeed experience things getting worse, even the direct subjects of persecution cannot.

"Some bring up the example of Russian pensioners who have been made worse off as a result of a tyrannical regime's fall, as an argument for maintaining tyranny, which is just as wrong-headed, in that it ignores the tens of millions slaughtered to sustain the regime that paid the Russian pensioner."

That's a train of causation that's derailed as soon as it pulls away from the platform, Will. Again, as 'the masses' points out, you're a sucker for bipolar thinking (in this case, you appear to define 'tyranny' as 'a government run by someone other than the GOP'); the point being that Russian pensioners don't pine for the days of Stalin -- and Stalin's actions didn't pay for their pensions, in any case -- but for the days of Gorbachev, or even the days before Yetsin signed over the Russian economy to the IMF and the Mafia. (Hm. IMaFia?) One might use the same argument to say that black Americans should be grateful for social inequality, because at least they're not slaves.

Are you twelve years old?

In the meantime, the sole institutional means available to America to ensure that it does not become a Soviet-style tyrant (particularly in countries it happens to occupy) are people who observe and criticize...patiently and relentlessly. Tarring them as anti-American does America a disservice by silencing or compressing vital signals for accountability. Americans certainly do not claim to be, and cannot be, a moral "master race." Our power for good lies in accountable institutions.

"Some bring up the example of Russian pensioners who have been made worse off as a result of a tyrannical regime's fall, as an argument for maintaining tyranny, which is just as wrong-headed, in that it ignores the tens of millions slaughtered to sustain the regime that paid the Russian pensioner."

That's a train of causation that's derailed as soon as it pulls away from the platform, Will. Again, as 'the masses' points out, you're a sucker for bipolar thinking (in this case, you appear to define 'tyranny' as 'a government run by someone other than the GOP'); the point being that Russian pensioners don't pine for the days of Stalin -- and Stalin's actions didn't pay for their pensions, in any case -- but for the days of Gorbachev, or even the days before Yetsin signed over the Russian economy to the IMF and the Mafia. (Hm. IMaFia?) One might use the same argument to say that black Americans should be grateful for social inequality, because at least they're not slaves.

Are you twelve years old?

Actually, Nick, I'm not a Republican, and the simple-minded, bi-polar, assumption that I am reveals that it is you who is more likely checking the mirror for your first whiskers. You wrote the following:

"But it is ludicrous to imply that in strictly experiential terms, being freed from tyranny into a combination of anarchy and large-scale deprivation actually feels like 'far better off'. There are thousands upon thousands of Russian pensioners who can also testify to this."

Since the "thousands upon thousands of Russian pensioners" were receiving their income from a regime that was constructed with the bones of millions and millions of murdered innocents (do you think Gorbachev sprang from the earth?), it is entirely reasonable to ask whether more concern should be afforded to those thousands that were better off under the tyrannical regime, or to those millions of innocents murdered. You side with the pensioners. So be it.

Your slavery analogy is inapt. The better analogy would be to ask whether the fact that some of the slaves who got to live in Massa's house had a net reduction in material well-being in the wake of emancipation meant that ending slavery by violent means (with some slaves being killed) was a bad choice. Your rationale can only conclude that the Civil War should not have been fought, since it was undoubtedly waged with less that pure motives regarding the conditions of the slaves, and many slaves unjustly suffered as result, and continued to do so for decades afterwords. I don't think many of today's descendents of slaves would agree with your reasoning.

Mr. MacLean, I must conclude that you also have not read what I actually wrote. I have clearly stated that there was a rational, moral, basis for criticism of U.S. policy, and opposition to this war, dependingon what assumptions one makes. What I have been critical of is the contention that the only moral calculation regarding waging this war is how many Iraqis will be harmed by the U.S. military, or the assumption that Iraq no longer under Hussein's regin of terror would be replaced by a environment that is worse than being Saddam's slave, followed by being Qusay's or Uday's slave.

My remarks to the aptly labeled "the masses are asses" were directed to him specifically, in that he is of the faction (which he does not dispute) that fervently believes that the United States is the most illegitmate regime, and is, in fact, morally inferior to that of Saddam Hussein's. This reflexive anti-Americanism has a long traditon, and has resulted in a reporter for the NYT winning a Pulitzer for covering up Stalin's genocide, for many benignly labeling Mao an "agrarian reformer" while the Great Helmsman was butchering millions, and to many defending the Khmer Rouge while it was piling the skulls of innocents to the sky. "the asses are masses " is part of this tradition, but by no means do I mean to imply that all who criticize this war, and certainly not those that criticize this Administration, are part of that tradition.

Will Allen: I enormously admire your diligence and energy, provided only that they have not been achieved through chemical stimulation, witchcraft, or a Satanic bargain. You, Sullivan, Thomsen, and Bucky provide an enormous service in keeping these discussion boards from deviating into more interesting areas!

Regarding your most recent post, what you basically said is that everyone who survived Stalin's dictatorship was guilty of the murder of everyone who didn't. Obviously the pensioners deserve to be reduced to destitution, since every single penny they get came from the melted-down gold teeth of Stalin's victims. That's a hard point to rebut.

"The pensioners" is not some elite group. It is pretty much equivalent to "all non-dead Soviet citizens beyond a certain age". But then, Thomsen has taught us that it is OK to condemn entire nations as vile going back centuries into the past.

Do you also believe that the Iraq Museum and Library were, in some sense, complicit in Saddam's crimes and thus deserved what they got? Other people do think that, and you might think of adding this point to your repertoire.

For the record, while I do enjoy making snarky comments to very special people, this board is a hundred times more interesting when certain people aren't on it.

OK, here's how to work the comments board.
1. Copy message
2. Press "post".
3. Wait ten seconds and press "cancel".
4. Return to DeLong, call up thread again. Your comment should be there. If not, repeat 2-4.

It works for me.

Ms. Harris, I think the regional political implications were the biggest reason to go in. Saddam's efforts to foment regional instability undermined the logic of continuing his games of footsy with the UN. Iraq offered the potential to change the regional game.

Brad, I'm no longer amazed at the persistent conspiracy theorists inhabiting your board. I believe the assumptions Henley makes in saying that the Pentagon has "increased the proliferation threat" are poorly thought out and not very defendable.

The thought that Saddam having control over WMD is better than a loss of evidence of their existence or their dispersal is genuinely insane. The biggest threat Saddam posed to the U.S. with chemical and biological weapons was in his potential to provide these materials to others. I understand that losing track of these materials creates problems, but those problems are very likely to have much lower funding and much poorer coordination than they had under Saddam.

Likewise, the suggestion that we could have better secured all suspect sites is a poor critique of the military plan. Although there is some indication that the small force size did leave the U.S. vulnerable in its ability to secure large portions of Iraqi territory (the plan did originally include the 4th Infantry coming from the North), the small force appears to have been extremely effective at quickly ridding Iraq of the regime. Thus, one could assume that a larger force would have likely been able to better secure territories and suspected sites once captured, but it would have also left Saddam's men more time to systematically destroy or transfer proscribed materials once the writing was on the wall. News reports said that Iraqi military moves seemed to be coming a day or two late. This gainsays Kay's assumption.

asswhatever, Saddam was not thought to have nukes only a program to develop them. Have you given any thought to the potential impact of war crimes charges for Iraqi military men ordering the use of WMD?

Furthermore, what did the UN know about Iraq's WMD before the inspectors were forced out of Iraq? How much of it was accounted for by Saddam this past year? Subtracting what was accounted for from what was known about, how much does that mean is left unaccounted for? Did the new inspections account for that material? In the terms of Saddam's surrender, doesn't he agree to disarm and quit his WMD programs? From what the UN inspectors knew and were able to verify at any point did Saddam stop his WMD programs and disarm?

Was it the U.S. who forced him to keep his WMD program? Was it the U.S. who prevented Iraq from escaping continued UN sanctions by ignoring the terms of his surrender? When materials were shipped in under the UN sanctions program, was it the U.S. who prevented it from reaching everyday Iraqi citizens?

In order to reach the conclusion that "the decade of strangulating sanctions" was the U.S.'s fault, doesn't it have to be the U.S.'s fault that Saddam didn't keep the terms of his surrender? To pretend that there was no reason to believe Saddam had WMD, don't you have suspend belief in what the UN already knew to have existed? That or you simply have take Saddam's word for it that they were destroyed, right?

zizka, you are smart like dsquared. The Taliban blew up a giant Budda before we could secure it too. I guess it was complicit in the 9/11 attacks?

Well, gee whiz, Zizka, your desire to converse only with those who agree with you is matched only by your reading comprehension problem. I never said that Russian pensioners deserved to be reduced to destitution. I said that their income was derived from a regime that was built on the bones of millions of slaughtered innocents. This is undeniably true, but not synonymous with saying that they got what they deserved. Perhaps a remedial adult reading class is available at a local community college.

While you're attending that class, you can get some help in adult problem solving, which inevitably results in the realization that the world does not often offer us solutions without trade-offs, so to lament, in a particualrly infantile fashion, that " x is intolerable, because it will result in y!" without honest reflection regarding what state of affairs will result absent x, or whether a world without x is worse than a world with x, but also including y, is the lament of a childish moron. To use the experience of thousands upon thousands of Russian pensioners as an example of how ending a tyrannical regime might result in some being not being better off, without a single word regarding the slaughter of tens of millions of innocents that the regime produced, is the moral reasoning of a childish moron. That regime ended because it was no longer willing to engage in the mass terror required to keep it running. Thank goodness. Too bad it took seven decades. To write of the fate of the pensioners that came from the tyrannical regime's end, a regime which could only maintain it's position by maintaining it's commitment to mass terror, without mention of the net positive result of the demise of a regime that slaughtered millions, is foolish.

As to your museum question, if you haven't noticed, a museum, and the displays inside, are inanimate objects. Perhaps your moral reasoning is different from mine, but I do not dwell too much on whether inanimate objects get what they deserve. I do consider whether the owners of the inanimate objects, in this case the Iraqi people, are having their property rights duly respected. Obviously, in this case, their property rights have not been respected, and who the thieves are is yet to be determined. Given the Hussein regime's dedication to theft from the Iraqi people, it would not be suprising if it participated in some manner. Would it have been better if the U.S. had prevented the theft? Of course, but if you are truly unable to grasp the calcualtion that results in the conclusion that ending the Hussein reign of terror is a net positive, even if it gave an opportunity for thieves to ransack a museum, well, you realy need to spend a semester or two more in educating yourself. Maybe a school in Basra has an opening available for you.

Will:

"Piling the skulls of innocents to the sky" - is that a non-card carrying Republican's preamble to explaining the carpet-bombing of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as a humanitarian mission?

On second thought - save the speech. You sound like you're pining for a shot at Noam Chomsky - and I don't have the time to deal with the volume of contradiction you seem to enjoy providing. And out of respect for the thread - why risk it? Who would have thought that debating the 'preemption doctrine' could have led to you 'pissing on' the victims of Indochina, the former-Soviet Union, Cuba, and so on.

To be honest - I thought you had made it pretty clear that 'agreeing to disagree' would have been the best option for the topic. The spirit of your 'response' seemed anything but promising. A 'rebuttal' that begins with 'you're a Saddam apologist' - references Uday Hussein's gold-plated gun - and concludes with 'you actually believe that a government such as Saddam Hussein's is morally superior to that of the United States' speaks for itself.

Not only was that nonsense irrelevant - but it offered more to support the suggestion that you're 12 than it did to challenge on point. And it's not that I didn't want to dispute your 'position' (I've tackled closet-Leninists in the past)...You just don't seem to bring very much to the table.

Stan: It doesn't bother me to explain my ideas in simple language for very special people. Also, I'm flattered to be compared to D-squared (in most cases). So anyway:

My point about the Iraq museum and library was that a lot of right-wing no-nothings, beyond absolving the US of and guilt as you have done, went beyond that to say that it wasn't a big deal anyway because, after all, they were Saddam's museum and library and couldn't possibly have been any good. I thought that this argument might appeal to Will. (P.S. Not that it matters to the likes of you, but the destruction occurred after the US was in control, and after the US had been warned many times; American troops on the site were even withdrawn).

Jesus F. Christ Will, the pensions were, like everything derived from taxes, derived from the labor of the pensioners. NOT from "the regime". You said you're not a Republican, by this you're obviously not a Libertarian, so what ARE you? Natural Law Party?

And it's not just the pensioners. Very few are better off in Russia. The life expectancy has plummeted and the nation's capital goods are being sold at fire-sale prices by the Russian Mafia and the old apparatchiks. It's probably better now than last I looked, but the immediate outcome was not good -- for the Russians, that is.

The defeat of the Soviet Union, the Taliban, and Saddam was unquestionably a good thing for the U.S. Whether it was a good thing for the Russians, the Afghans, and the Iraqis remains to be seen. It's not obvious in any of the three cases. But I'm confident that no matter what, as a non-Afghan non-Russian non-Iraqi, you will be satisfied with the results.

Well, one who despises the masses, the writer of the following paragraphs:

"Will - feel free to delude yourself. Repeated mention of 'cleanly shaven' Afghan men and women trading in 'Burqas for bikinis' might bring comfort to your soul - but does little for those of us adhering to truth, morality and principle. And although it has given former Unocal advisor Hamed Karzai the 'legitimacy' to spread freedom - American-style, the 500 Chalabi thugs taking a break from looting to cheer U.S. forces toppling a statue does little for Baghdad's 5 million terrified citizens - still cowering in their 'soon to be democratic' homes.

The tyranny of the greatest democracy on Earth may force good people to include the wholly-defensive qualifier 'not to say that Saddam wasn't a brutal dictator' - but refusing to recognize a pre-'91 Iraq where the 'butcher of Baghdad' felt the need to support the best healthcare system in the Arab world, a strong educational infrastructure and a gross per capita income that was the envy of the region is unintelligent. Maybe 12 years of targeting water treatment facilities, food production plants and ‘innocent civilians’ escaped your 'scrutiny' - but surely the decade of strangulating sanctions must have made you wonder. Did you ever question whether the chlorine and industrial equipment the not-quite-yet innocent civilians were denied might have improved lives - maybe even saved a few hundred thousand? Did any of this really target the regime? 'Winners' of your ilk have always found war crimes to be 'touchy' subject."

Has demonstrated the following:

1.A delusion regarding the tyranny of pre '91 Saddam. Go ask the Kurds.

2. An inability to comprehend the degree of terror, and the likely permenance such terror, that the residents of Bagdhad endured prior to the U.S. invasion. Since one has obviously concluded that the U.S. invasion has produced a net increase, long-term, in the degree of terror experienced by Bagdhad residents (otherwise why mention it in the context of the U.S. invasion, while making no mention of what the degree of terror was prior to the invasion?), it can be reasonably said that one has concluded that the regime of Saddam is morally preferable to the that of the United States, if it is assumed that the regime that inculcates the greatest amount of terror on innocent civilians is the morally inferior regime.

3. A conflation, out of a intellectually dishonest desire to change the subject, or simply lack of rigor, from the morality of the invasion, to the morality of the sanctions, without reference to who was most responsible for the sanctions, or how an invasion years earlier would have rendered the sanctions moot. If Hussein had adhered to the surrender agreement, would sanctions have ensued? Did not the sanctions allow plenty of money to be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people, assuming it wasn't spent gold plating AK-47s or otherwise stolen?

4. A continuation of the pattern to simply make a choice: toleration of Saddam's regime, and what it meant for the people of Iraq, or his removal by force, and what it meant for the people of Iraq. You have repeatedly stated your preference Saddam remain in power. As I have repeatedly stated, one can make the argument that they think it preferable that Saddam remain in power, but to assert that it would be better for the Iraqi people to not have the opportunity to be governed absent Saddam's reign of terror is to make the assertion of a moral bankruptcy. The fact that U.S. may have been wrong or dishonest about any number of things does not allow one to avoid a very basic calculation: Are the people of Iraq better off having the opportunity to live without Saddam, or are the costs of removing Saddam by force so high , or the likelihood of Iraqis governing themselves in a non-savage manner so low, that living under Saddam's reign of terror, for decades, a better condition?

Finally, as to "pissing on" victims, I merely pointed out the long tradition you are part of; the tradition of ignoring the victims of tyranny, out of reflexive anti-Americanism. "Prior to '91, Saddam wasn't so bad! It's the United States' fault!". "Castro gives good health care! The U.S. should be so attentive to human rights!". "The Khmer Rouge aren't so bad, look at what the U.S. has done in the region!" "Stalin is equitably providing for the masses! The U.S. should learn from his progressive example!" Welcome to the club.

Zizka, it still entails choosing whether the demise of a regime, which results in thousands upon thousands of pensioners losing their wealth, is worse than having a regime remain in power, when it can only remain in power by the use of mass murder, which it has previously engaged in to the tune of tens of millions. If you prefer continued mass murder, well, I guess that's your choice. Why don't you go ask a kulak if they concur? Oops, they're all gone, aren't they?

Will, you're reading a lot into what I said while ignoring part of it. First, I pointed out that as of right now the Russians **overall**, not just pensioners, don't seem to be better off than they were in 1990. You didn't try to deny it; you seem to be operating in some ideological videogame alternative universe where good systems fight against bad systems without affecting people much, except that the bad systems are bad. And your team is winning, so obviously there's no problem.

Second, I never said that I thought that the fall of the Soviet Union, the Taliban, or Saddam was a bad thing. I was just pointing out that the local here-and-now people may or may not have benefitted yet. (The kulaks were 60-70 years ago.)

Yes, Will, I have a great fondness for mass murder. [Sentence deleted]. I have no idea how you and Thomsen get away with the stuff you say here. You contribute nothing and come close to ruining this place. [Another sentence deleted]

Well gosh, Zizka, maybe the community college can explain rhetorical devices as well. The point is that it is insufficient to look at condition y in isolation, and conclude that condition y is intolerable, without considering what events brought about condition y, and whether those events make condition y tolerable. In this case, having thousands upon thousands pensioners lose their wealth was a result of having a regime end that could only maintain power as a result of mass murder, and had previously killed killed tens of millions.

The point about Russian pensioners was originally made by another party, in this manner:

"But it is ludicrous to imply that in strictly experiential terms, being freed from tyranny into a combination of anarchy and large-scale deprivation actually feels like 'far better off'. There are thousands upon thousands of Russian pensioners who can also testify to this."

This is a deeply disingenuous, or deeply ignorant, argument to make without reference to the tens of millions who cannot testify to anything regarding the changed state of affairs, for the simple reason that they are mouldering in their graves. Similarly, the Russians alive today are better off than the massive numbers that were murdered, or put away in the gulags, well into the 60s and 70s.

Do I wish the Russians had better conditions? Absolutely, and for reasons both altruistic and selfish. It is a logical fallacy, however to say the Soviet system collapsed, the Russians' conditions worsened, therefore the Soviet collapse caused the Russian conditions to worsen. Has it occured to you that it may be that forces that caused the system to collapse were exactly the same as those that caused the conditions to worsen, that is, the conditions were going to worsen regardless of whether the regime mustered up the will for another round of mass murder in order to maintain control? I did not think you were among those who were regretful of the collapse of the demise of the Soviet, Taliban, or Hussein regime. I cannot say the same for all anit-war critics, however.

As to what people get away with, I have commonly been subject to all manner of ad hominem attacks in this forum, but I guess when one disagrees with the forum's general consensus, all's fair. Which ox is being gored, and all that.

OK Will, I didn't say that the fall of the Soviet Union, the Taliban, and Saddam were bad or even neutral. I just pointed out that we can't be sure that actual living citizens of those countries have benefitted. Apparently you want to be able to keep all of the victims of Stalin and Lenin in a bank, so that the here-and-now outcomes will be irrelevant until the body count is equal.

As I said twice now, the problem wasn't simply the pensioners, but the contemporary flesh-and-blood Russians as a group. As I understand, the Russian life expectancy has declined by as much as ten years since liberation. So Communism has been replaced by something worse than Communism, it seems (though since you plan to keep paying in your dead kulaks from seventy years ago until the numbers are even, you won't see it that way). Nothing impossible about a system being worse than Communism. The same might happen in the other two cases.

"If you prefer continued mass murder, well, I guess that's your choice." I strongly request that you and Thomsen quit accusing people of mass murder. It's an insult to everyone here, above all DeLong. I am completely capable of giving you the response you deserve, but it would ruin this board even worse. So can you quit?

You still haven't dealt with the logical fallacy in concluding that the worsening conditions were caused by the fall of the Soviet regime. It is perfectly possible that the factors which eventually caused the worsening conditions also first caused the fall of a regime that was no longer willing to commit the mass murder required to keep it afloat.

I am sorry that you may think it irrelevant to the discussion those victims the pre-date your preferred time range. As to my sentence structure, clearly the word "if" at the beginning makes the statement rhetorical in nature, and not an accusation of supporting mass murder. Funny how you don't consider ad hominem attacks against those who have positions that do not agree with yours to be threatening the site with ruin. Really are focused on your own oxen, out of a love for ideological purity, aren't you?

By the time the Soviet Union fell (~1990), the villains in the kulak murders (~1930)were almost all dead. The system was continuous with the earlier system, but there was a lot of water over the dam and it was a different system. Not a good one, but not as bad.

Yeah, the logical possibility exists that the disasters following the collapse of the Soviet Union would have happened anyway. Hypothetical. Actual: disaster for the Russians and other Soviet peoples right after liberation. Something worse than Communism. But the logical possibility that there could be a different explanation for what happened doesn't make me illogical. It just means that I wasn't solving a logic problem. What I said is the most reasonable historical description of what happened. Your triumph is delusory.

As I've said now three times, I do not regret the fall of any of the three regimes. Have you now finally tacitly admitted, though, that the disaster in the ex-USSR affected most people there, and not just the pensioners?

If you prefer to continue to act like a moron piece of snotty shit, I guess it's your choice. (Hypothetical, so it's OK, Brad). The reason why your lame bullshit and ad hominem attacks are more destructive to the site than my own invective is that when you're not around, people can actually have intelligent conversations here, and there's FAR less invective. Without you, Bucky, Thompson, and the bad Sullivan, we actually do something here besides rant.

I repeat my objection to your and Thomsen's reflex accusation that anyone who disagrees with you is a Communist in some way implicated with mass murder. Or the whole French nation. And I think the Canadians too. What a waste of time you jerks are.

WHY can't the bunch of you go somewhere where you are wanted?

Few things are as amusing, in a pathetic sort of way, than the pompous ass who adopts the conceit that they can measure the attitudes , without in- depth study, of dozens, if not hundreds, of perfect strangers, and therefore assumes that the strangers must agree with the ass. Grow up and get over yourself.

Now, as to your continued intellectual dishonesty: My remarks regarding Russian pensioners was originally made in response to someone who brought up their specific example to show the downside of ending tyrannical regimes. This was a deeply ignorant comment, in that it ignored the context of the tyrannical regime. I made no comments regarding the general welfare of the Russian population, other than to note that not being murdered has it's advantages. The fact remains that no causal connection can be drawn between the fall of the Soviet regime and the decline in living conditions (since the factors which caused the decline may well have been just as powerful if the regime had engaged in yet another needed round of mass terror to maintain control), so the cause of the disaster is yet to be defined, and not being murdered or stuck in a gulag must be counted as a disaster of lesser proportions.

Your deeper dishonesty is your accusation that I reflexively accuse anyone who disagrees with me of being a Communist and implicated with mass murder. I accused the one who despises the masses of a preference for Saddam, for specifically outlined reasons, and listed him with part of a historically undeniable tradition of siding with bloody tyrants whose major attraction was being anti-American. Delong posted on the phenomena recently. Goodness gracious! Perhaps I've infected Prof. Delong's ideological purity!

My rhetorical supposition (by the way your use of the word "continue" transforms your remark from the the rhetorical to the ad hominem, in that it pre-supposes my condition, whereas my use of the word "continued" refers to the actions of others, and still leaves open the question as to whether you approve of those actions, thus rendering the remark rhetorical in nature) was in response to the following sentences by you:

"The defeat of the Soviet Union, the Taliban, and Saddam was unquestionably a good thing for the U.S. Whether it was a good thing for the Russians, the Afghans, and the Iraqis remains to be seen."

Well, if one wishes to make the case that the formerly Soviet people would be better off under continued Soviet tyranny, feel free to make the case. Remember, one cannot logically conclude that the Soviet regime remaining in control would have resulted in improved material conditions for those not murdered or imprisoned, which is what was needed for such control to continue, and even if it could, it wouldn't be much comfort for those dragged into cellars and shot through the skull.

In any case, I did not label you a communist, have clearly stated, on repeated occasions (there goes that reading comprehension problem again!) that those that hold differing opinions can do so without supporting tyranny, and that my remarks are limited to a few. In fact, I regularly have disagreements with posters such as D-squared or Jason McCullough which are civil and without invective, but that is because they don't demand ideological purity, and don't react with ad hominem invective when logical implications of their positions are asserted. Therefore, and ironically, your attribution to me of relexive accusations of communism, and nonsense about the French or Canadians (?!), is yet another ad hominem attack on your part.

zizka, thanks for the remedial explanation. I can see the lack of substance to your point much clearer now.

There were apparently no orders to protect museums from looting. The Pentagon admitted that they didn't expect Iraqis to ransack them. In addition, troop strength was much smaller than normal due to operational decisions. Since you are smart like dsquared, you remember the low troop strength being a source of partisan fodder just a week prior. Thus, initial estimates were that the museums wouldn't be attacked so no orders were given to protect them. When looting became apparent (which we'll take for granted that widespread looting occurred AND was known about by commanders in the field), manpower was in short supply.

Although efforts are being made to say those areas were under U.S. control, the Pentagon was NOT making claims about large areas of control in Baghdad at that point. In other words, the war was still continuing and opposition forces were still being engaged THROUGHOUT the city. In light of the above, the "oversight" is somewhat understandable. Jumping to the conclusion that the Pentagon cared nothing of Iraqi museums because they were affiliated with Saddam in light of the above information is just partisan BS.

Could more effort have been made to secure those sites? Probably! Is it a clear cut case that more should have been done? Not even close! You would have to know all of the information being looked at by the troops in the field to make a case that guarding museums should have been a higher priority at that time. Even knowing that tanks and troops were "just down the street" doesn't mean that they should have abandon their positions to protect museums.

Of course I can be wrong. I don't claim to be a military analyst and I'm certainly not privy to the kind of information that you apparently are.

In support of Zizka, I can tell you from personal experience that there are some 3.5 million Armenians who, while not quite outwardly lementing the passing of the Soviet Union (they're too forwardlooking of a people) readily admit that life was much better as a Soviet Republic. In fact, it is not unusual to hear people refer to the period under the Soviets as the "good old days".

Under the Soviet umbrella Armenians had high tech, skilled labor, and other manufacturing jobs. Unemployment was consistently below 6%, which is pretty good in that part of the world. Farmers enjoyed new machinery and fertilizers and were very productive. There was security, peace and prosperity.

Now the country is alone (though ties with Russia remain strong in lieu of American aid) surrounded by hostile neighbors. There is fear. unemployment is up. The good jobs are gone, for the most part. The counry is struggling. Armenia is doing its best to attrack foreign capital, but those security issues are a hinderance. A few years ago the Azerbaijanis (with the Turks cheering on) cut the gas lines and Armenians froze and factories closed down. BTW: Where were the American freedom fighters then?

Thomson, Allen and a few others are ideologues who have, apparently, little conection to events or people outside the US. Their black and white view of things is apparently supported by selective info garnished from by k-12 history class, and fueled by a self imposed ignorance of what goes on in the world.

The present Armenian situation is worse than communism by any measure other than that of "hope".
Hope cannot be eaten, it will not keep you enemies at bey, nor will it heal the seriously ill.

To Will 'I didn't call you a communist - I just said that you come from a long tradition of guys that resemble communists' Allen:

"1.A delusion regarding the tyranny of pre '91 Saddam. Go ask the Kurds."

I fail to see how 'asking the Kurds' has anything to do with the argument I present. And although I certainly haven't said anything that would deny the fact that this regime has violently put down its opposition - it shouldn't go unnoticed that Iraq is just one of many totalitarian regimes the U.S. has supported. I would even argue that they prefer to support these regimes (democracy can be a hindrance to a successful client-state relationship). Once again, the plight of the Kurds hardly negates the points that I have made, my concern for the people of this country or its contemporary history. On the other hand - considering your refrain: "You actually believe that a government such as Saddam Hussein's is morally superior to that of the United States" - it would not be unwise for you to avoid the 'Kurdish question' altogether. Come to think of it - the U.S. record with all of Iraq's ethnically distinctive populations is downright tragic - and makes your 'moral superiority' argument little more than ignorant flag-waving.

The Kurds that were killed in the town of Halabja back in 1988 were the victims of a moving battlefront within the Iran-Iraq War. The history - and I don't mean the world according to CNN or Fox News - would make this weak ground for your canonization of the U.S. With that said - what do you think the State Department's reaction was shortly after Halabja? Who do you think the U.S. agreed with about the responsibility for the thousands of dead villagers? Who was the U.S. supporting during that war with Iran? And how do you reconcile a murderous-'lesser of two evils' policy with your 'moral superiority' argument?

And just as the Gulf War was ending - how many of Iraq's ethnically distinctive populations benefited from the U.S. giving the Iraqi regime permission to put their helicopters back in air? That's right. The Americans allowed Saddam to put his airpower back into the sky. Do you think the Kurds were happy? The Shiites in the south? How do you get a clear 'moral superiority' out of that Will?

U.S. COMMAND LET SADDAM PUT HIS HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS BACK IN THE SKY.

This was the response the U.S. gave to a battered Iraqi high command (you'll recall that nothing was allowed in the sky during the war) that asked for permission. To add insult to injury - U.S. forces were in visual range of Iraqi forces putting down the Shiite uprising in the South.

THE 'MORALLY SUPERIOR' AMERICANS WERE IN VISUAL RANGE.

And in the lead-up to the latest invasion - the Turks rejected a $26 billion bribe from the 'morally superior' Americans. Do you have any idea of the concessions that had been offered regarding Northern Iraq? Let me just say that Iraq's Kurdish population was petrified from the little that was leaked (and not denied). Do you think the U.S. concessions deviated from the years of tacit approval given to the continuing atrocities committed against the large Kurdish population in Southern Turkey? Has the U.S. ever refused to provide Turkey the 'equipment' they use to kill Kurds? Have the Americans ever denied them the funding - be it direct U.S. funding or through the IMF? Is this part of your understanding of American 'moral superiority'? Do you feel foolish about having to jump to 'Uday's golden gun' once you quickly exhaust the political capital of Halabja and your quick and vague mention of other atrocities?

Have you worked out a formula for that 'moral superiority' calculation? Is it 'direct kills' - or total bodycount? Using your 'logic' - do you think Adolf Hitler had moral superiority over Joseph Stalin? And recognizing your comment, "the regime that inculcates the greatest amount of terror on innocent civilians is the morally inferior regime", as a testament to your moral depravity - is it painful to realize that - as far as human carnage goes - the 'morally superior' U.S. still comes out 'on top'?

Will - take a hint - it's OK to be 'black and white' on this one. Not to say that Iraq is responsible for anywhere near the number of the deaths that have resulted from U.S. policy and intervention - but being responsible for fewer deaths doesn't translate into 'moral superiority'.

And with all that said - I will try to be brief with the rest of your 'golden-gun' propaganda.

"2. An inability to comprehend the degree of terror, and the likely permenance such terror, that the residents of Bagdhad endured prior to the U.S. invasion."

Unless you would care to offer detail here Will - I can't argue the party line. I've studied the region for years - and would welcome any 'clarification.'

"Since one has obviously concluded that the U.S. invasion has produced a net increase, long-term, in the degree of terror experienced by Bagdhad residents (otherwise why mention it in the context of the U.S. invasion, while making no mention of what the degree of terror was prior to the invasion?), it can be reasonably said that one has concluded that the regime of Saddam is morally preferable to the that of the United States, if it is assumed that the regime that inculcates the greatest amount of terror on innocent civilians is the morally inferior regime."

Degree of terror in Baghdad? Like hitting a bomb shelter packed with hundreds of civilians (1991)? (do the Geneva Conventions only apply to the morally inferior?) Maybe you were referring to the slow painful death of hundreds of thousands in the decade since (the U.S. went 'out of its way' to 'tighten' sanctions in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom - denying an expanded list of 'dual-use' medicines and equipment). Or are we talking about the unarmed protestors being shot on an almost daily basis?

'Moral Superiority'? Again - thanks for the lesson Will.

"3. A conflation, out of a intellectually dishonest desire to change the subject, or simply lack of rigor, from the morality of the invasion, to the morality of the sanctions, without reference to who was most responsible for the sanctions, or how an invasion years earlier would have rendered the sanctions moot. If Hussein had adhered to the surrender agreement, would sanctions have ensued? Did not the sanctions allow plenty of money to be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people, assuming it wasn't spent gold plating AK-47s or otherwise stolen?"

The only one being intellectually dishonest here is you Will. Anyone that demonstrates disdain for the victims of flawed ideology - Russian pensioners that deserve a 10 year reduction in life expectancy because of the ill-gotten largesse of their pensions - and wrongly punishes people for the faults of a regime's brutality should not be taken seriously when speaking of morality. Your thinking is flawed - and your humanity insincere. History has shown that the excess of rule is a characteristic of government - no matter what type of regime it may be. History has also shown that heartless ideologues like you are at the root of the disdain that punishes common people everywhere.

What is also intellectually dishonest here is your recognition of Saddam as an iron-fisted despot - and your unwillingness to admit the barbarism of continuing to punish the victims of such a despot. A decade of sanctions couldn't have possibly hurt those that were 'gold-plating' their guns - but surely made the people suffer the inhumane pain and suffering of being unnecessarily deprived of basic necessities. I guess they were between a rock and a hard place. It is so kind of the U.S. to all of a sudden manufacture a WMD threat in order to stop 'Saddam's' killing - and to finally set the Iraqi people free. One question though - without Operation Iraqi Freedom, how long would U.S. 'moral superiority' have used the denial of industrial equipment, chlorine and medicines to 'help Saddam Hussein kill' hundreds of thousands of Iraqis?

Come on Will - let's be honest - you don't give crap about any of this people. The U.S. - or Saddam, if it makes you feel better - could have tortured and starved these people for decades while you sat back and clarified who was at fault. Doesn't really get the people very much - or explain the million and a half that have died unnecessarily. Come to think of it - it's very 'Madeline Albright' of you - to decide that hundreds of thousands of children dying is 'worth it.'

Once again - thanks for the lesson on 'moral superiority'.

"4. A continuation of the pattern to simply make a choice: toleration of Saddam's regime, and what it meant for the people of Iraq, or his removal by force, and what it meant for the people of Iraq. You have repeatedly stated your preference Saddam remain in power. As I have repeatedly stated, one can make the argument that they think it preferable that Saddam remain in power, but to assert that it would be better for the Iraqi people to not have the opportunity to be governed absent Saddam's reign of terror is to make the assertion of a moral bankruptcy. The fact that U.S. may have been wrong or dishonest about any number of things does not allow one to avoid a very basic calculation: Are the people of Iraq better off having the opportunity to live without Saddam, or are the costs of removing Saddam by force so high , or the likelihood of Iraqis governing themselves in a non-savage manner so low, that living under Saddam's reign of terror, for decades, a better condition?"

The cost of U.S. intervention in the region - and with Iraq - over the last 12 years has been colossal. To argue that the thousands of Iraqi's who have already died - or are currently being shot in the streets by U.S. soldiers - are better off under the rule of a force that has secured the oil ministry, oil wells and not much else is disingenuous. While ignoring your 'you prefer Saddam' juvenile rhetoric - I find the suggestion that Americans are motivated by improving Iraqi lives rather hard to believe. Even if this were true, the U.S. is not the moral standard-bearer for the planet. It has a litany of conflicting interests, questionable motives and is far from an impartial participant. More importantly - the U.S. broke international law, undermined the United Nations, violated the Geneva Conventions and damaged hopes for improved international security. This illegitimate approach and belligerent arrogance does not smell of freedom or democracy - but of empire building. Good luck in supporting the U.S.S.A.

"Finally, as to "pissing on" victims, I merely pointed out the long tradition you are part of; the tradition of ignoring the victims of tyranny, out of reflexive anti-Americanism. "Prior to '91, Saddam wasn't so bad! It's the United States' fault!". "Castro gives good health care! The U.S. should be so attentive to human rights!". "The Khmer Rouge aren't so bad, look at what the U.S. has done in the region!" "Stalin is equitably providing for the masses! The U.S. should learn from his progressive example!" Welcome to the club."

And considering that it took you 10 postings to get close to challenging on point - and badly at that - I'm disappointed you would revert so quickly to the debating style of a 12-year old. For someone that accused me of a "dishonest desire to change the subject" - you demonstrate an uncanny knack for categorizing your opponents on the basis of characterizations that have very little to do with the subject at hand - all in an effort to point out the "long tradition [we] are [all] part of."

Writing well does little to hide your intellectual dishonesty - or your moral corruption.

Grow up.

In support of Zizka, I can tell you from personal experience that there are some 3.5 million Armenians who, while not quite outwardly lementing the passing of the Soviet Union (they're too forwardlooking of a people) readily admit that life was much better as a Soviet Republic. In fact, it is not unusual to hear people refer to the period under the Soviets as the "good old days".

Under the Soviet umbrella Armenians had high tech, skilled labor, and other manufacturing jobs. Unemployment was consistently below 6%, which is pretty good in that part of the world. Farmers enjoyed new machinery and fertilizers and were very productive. There was security, peace and prosperity.

Now the country is alone (though ties with Russia remain strong in lieu of American aid) surrounded by hostile neighbors. There is fear. unemployment is up. The good jobs are gone, for the most part. The counry is struggling. Armenia is doing its best to attrack foreign capital, but those security issues are a hinderance. A few years ago the Azerbaijanis (with the Turks cheering on) cut the gas lines and Armenians froze and factories closed down. BTW: Where were the American freedom fighters then?

Thomson, Allen and a few others are ideologues who have, apparently, little conection to events or people outside the US. Their black and white view of things is apparently supported by selective info garnished from by k-12 history class, and fueled by a self imposed ignorance of what goes on in the world.

The present Armenian situation is worse than communism by any measure other than that of "hope".
Hope cannot be eaten, it will not keep you enemies at bey, nor will it heal the seriously ill.

In support of Zizka, I can tell you from personal experience that there are some 3.5 million Armenians who, while not quite outwardly lementing the passing of the Soviet Union (they're too forwardlooking of a people) readily admit that life was much better as a Soviet Republic. In fact, it is not unusual to hear people refer to the period under the Soviets as the "good old days".

Under the Soviet umbrella Armenians had high tech, skilled labor, and other manufacturing jobs. Unemployment was consistently below 6%, which is pretty good in that part of the world. Farmers enjoyed new machinery and fertilizers and were very productive. There was security, peace and prosperity.

Now the country is alone (though ties with Russia remain strong in lieu of American aid) surrounded by hostile neighbors. There is fear. unemployment is up. The good jobs are gone, for the most part. The counry is struggling. Armenia is doing its best to attrack foreign capital, but those security issues are a hinderance. A few years ago the Azerbaijanis (with the Turks cheering on) cut the gas lines and Armenians froze and factories closed down. BTW: Where were the American freedom fighters then?

Thomson, Allen and a few others are ideologues who have, apparently, little conection to events or people outside the US. Their black and white view of things is apparently supported by selective info garnished from by k-12 history class, and fueled by a self imposed ignorance of what goes on in the world.

The present Armenian situation is worse than communism by any measure other than that of "hope".
Hope cannot be eaten, it will not keep you enemies at bey, nor will it heal the seriously ill.

Stan: There was plenty of warning that the museum was threatened. Lots. American troops already there were pulled back. All from the newspapers, not secret information of mine. However, the Rumsfeld's snarky, cheesy public comments on TV were what put me into a rage. Plus a lot of know-nothing right-wing comments I hear and read here and there.

For the umpteenth time, I did not say I was sorry that Saddam had been overthrown. I said that, from the point of view of the Iraqis, it remains to be seen if they have been liberated. Same as for the USSR and Afghanistan.

As far as I can tell, for Will this all is some kind of board game in which we get revenge for past wrongs, not an attempt to better the lot of any actual person or group of people.

I still think that the Nazis on this site who are whining about ad hominem attacks should quit accusing their adversaries of complicity in genocide and Stalinism. It's not just one person and it happens over and over again (twice to me yesterday). You Nazis go first, and I'll follow suit. Deal?

The one who despises the masses has now written a long screed, once again focusing entirely on the wrongdoing of the United States, which leads, once again, one to reasonably conclude that he actually belives the regime of Saddam Hussein to be morally superior to that of the United States. Once and for all, one who despises the masses (yet purports to care for them!), which regime do you believe to be morally superior? Your scare quotes qround the words morally superior, in reference to the government of the United States, certainly leads to the reasonable conclusion that you believe the United States to have no position of moral superiority to that of Saddam Hussien. Thanks for proving my point, and reinforcing the rightness of placing you in the long tradition of those who tolerate mass murder, as long as it is done by those tyrants in opposition to the admittedly imperfect United States.

As to juvenile behavior, the it is purely infantile to stamp one's foot and say "X is intolerable, bcasue it entails y!", without first calculating the degree of y, absent x, or whether x is better than no x, regardless of the motivations of the various actors involved. I notice, in your typical propensity for lying, that you suggest that I have asserted what U.S. motivations are. You write, "I find the suggestion that Americans are motivated by improving Iraqi lives rather hard to believe." This is a lie, since I have never made any specific suggestion as to what U.S. motivations are, other than to suggest that were many. If you believe the Iraqi population would have been better off without Saddam's forcible removal, make the case as to why having the regime tyrranize the population for the next few decades was a superior state of affairs. Better yet, don't bother. Your tiresome lying, changing the subject, and attempts to cloud the issue have rendered further discussion pointless.

In case you haven't noticed, as opposed to simply attempting to change the subject, our original point of contention had nothing to do with the sanctions. The vast majority of the responsibility of the sanctions' hardship rests on Saddam, although I think removing Saddam by force years ago was the superior course of action, for a variety of reasons. Anyways, our original contention had to do with whether removing Hussein by force last month was intolerable due to the negative effect such a forcible removal had upon the Iraqi civilian population. That question has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's ties to oil companies, Hamid Karzai, alleged violations of international law by the United States, the infield fly rule, or Maddonna's latest single. It really is a straightforward, although perhaps difficult calculation: are the people of Iraq better off going through what is entailed in removing Saddam by force, or are they better off living under his, and heirs', thumb for the next few decades, at least. The past misdeeds of the United States has little to do with that calculation. The fact that you are still unwilling to answer the question in a straightforward manner, and explain the basis of your answer, but instead have once again descended into a pit of lies, obfuscation, and general evasion, leads one to conclude that further dialogue is pointless. See ya'.

zizka, I cannot answer your question, since it is not true that I said you were complicit in either genocide or Stalinism. I put forth a rhetorical supposition, centered around the word "if", which was meant to draw the logically compelling conclusion that when one is faced with scenario A or scenario B, it is insufficient to focus simply on scenario B's negatives, but one must also fully acknowledge scenario A's negatives. When scenario B is the material deprivation that exists after a tyrranical regime falls, and scenario A is the continuance of the tyrannical regime, with the ratcheting up of mass terror needed to maintain control, and it cannot even be shown that maintaining tyranny will avoid the material deprivation, well, one is then faced with asserting that IF another wishes to choose continued mass terror, another is free to do so. This is not synonymous with my accusing you of complicity in genocide or Stalinism. It is an illumination of the unavoidable trade-offs involved in facing what is all too common in this imperfect world; the choice of least awful alternatives.

On the other hand, you have undeniably engaged in all manner of ad hominem attacks on me, which now includes calling me a Nazi, along with a series of false attributions. I've got a fairly thick skin, but why on earth would you believe this to be an effective method of argumentation?

Jack made an important point above, which has not been answered by anybody.

If Osama bin Laden showed up tomorrow and made the following speech:

"Everything I said about jihad against the infidels was just disinformation. In actual fact, what I wanted to do was to liberate the people of Iraq. I decided that the only way that this would be possible would be to commit a massive terrorist act on US soil, forcing the USA to take action against hostile regimes and thus removing the tyrant Saddam".

... would you regard him as the liberator of Baghdad and say that the thousands who died in the WTC were an unfortunate side-effect to be set against the millions of Iraqis who are now free?

Will –

I despise no one. And although your substanceless pattern of behavior is pretty obvious - I do wonder what you gain from these boards? Sadly - this is not the first time you have chosen the ad hominem approach to accusing me of hate and intolerance - while avoiding the argument at hand and the very questions you yourself have posed. Let me offer you some advice:

1) Don't confuse the recognition of stupidity or obstinacy with spite.

2) Don't allow your inclusion in 'the masses' to affect the contribution you make here.

3) Don't use 'moral superiority' as a slogan that is not to be examined.

4) And don't post questions like "Ask the Kurds" - someone might actually answer it.

You said:
"As to juvenile behavior, the it is purely infantile to stamp one's foot and say "X is intolerable, bcasue it entails y!", without first calculating the degree of y, absent x, or whether x is better than no x, regardless of the motivations of the various actors involved."

Interesting...do you mean degree of 'moral superiority'? And secondly, I'm not sure who called you a NAZI - and it is of little concern to me whether you are...or not - but what I would like to know is - being one of the many questions you chose to ignore - do you think Adolf Hitler had moral superiority over Joseph Stalin? (“straightforward manner” appreciated)

Do you believe the "past 'misdeeds' of the United States [have] little to do with" moral superiority? How about the 'past misdeeds' specific to Iraq, the Kurds and the Shiites? Can these 'misdeeds' be part of your 'moral superiority' calculation? And if you open up the discussion to positive effects on the Iraqi people and the 'moral superiority' of the United States - then a crippling decade of sanctions - and the driving force behind the sanction regime are surely open to discussion? N’est pas? And using the same logic - past U.S. behavior with respect to the Kurds and Shiites surely qualifies as part of a 'moral superiority' examination - or as part of an answer to your “ask the Kurds” question? Or was that another question that has an absolute and undeniable answer?

You said:
"That question has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's ties to oil companies, Hamid Karzai, alleged violations of international law by the United States, the infield fly rule, or Madonna’s latest single. It really is a straightforward, although perhaps difficult calculation: are the people of Iraq better off going through what is entailed in removing Saddam by force, or are they better off living under his, and heirs', thumb for the next few decades, at least."

Although Pravda used a similar style to 'explain' the Soviet position - it's not quite Ivy League - is it Will? And judging from life in president-day Afghanistan - or even the Occupied Territories - 'disarming' and 'liberating' Iraq on the basis of something other than making "the people of Iraq better off" does not smell of morality - or noble intentions. How could it bode well for the people of Iraq - victims for the past 12 years – who will surely see very little of their countries natural wealth once the U.S. completes privatization - and the IMF, World Bank, and the private banks put them on an ‘easy-pay’ plan. I’m willing to wager everything I have that the Iraqi people will not see anything near the standard of living they enjoyed prior to 1991 - not in my lifetime – and not in their lifetimes. Only someone of your 'moral fiber' and 'intellectual honesty' would claim that everyone is better off while equating the importance of international law to the rules of a game - or a pop song. Is it any surprise that those of us that believe in democracy, the constitution and our guaranteed freedoms – along with much of the world - are having trouble 'buying' your simplistic rhyme – and 'reason'?

You said:
"I notice, in your typical propensity for lying, that you suggest that I have asserted what U.S. motivations are. You write, "I find the suggestion that Americans are motivated by improving Iraqi lives rather hard to believe." This is a lie, since I have never made any specific suggestion as to what U.S. motivations are."

Lying? If ‘x’ is Saddam Hussein's regime - and ‘y’ is the invading U.S. Force - and ‘z’ is the moral superiority that could only benefit the oppressed Iraqis - how can my non-specific extrapolation of 'improved Iraqi lives' be "lying" - even if 'specifically' attributed the initiator of the ‘moral superiority’ argument?

More importantly - although this is not the first time you have accused me of "lying" and "intellectual dishonesty" - even "tiresome lying" and "descend[ing] into a pit of lies, obfuscation, and general evasion" - it is the first time you have attempted to substantiate it - unsuccessfully at that. What are the other instances you speak of - or is this just another sad example of you not having much to bring to the table?

Rather pathetic – wouldn’t you say?

Although I said I was done, I'll reply, briefly, to yet more dishonesty on the part of the one who despises the masses.

1) To describe the masses as "asses" is to express one's contempt for that group of people.

2) I never once described specific motivations for the forcible removal of the Hussein regime removal, so to say, "I find the suggestion that Americans are motivated by improving Iraqi lives rather hard to believe." is plainly a lie, for no such suggestion was made. Net positive results can be the by-product of actions by actors with the worst of motivations. The motivations of the actors is not a needed factor in determining whether an action will result in net positive results. I have asked you, repeatedly, whether you think the government of Saddam Hussien was inferior or superior to that of the United States, in terms of terror inflicted on the Iraqis, simply because you focus nearly entirely on the misdeeds of the United States, which reasonably leads to the conclusion that you believe rule under Saddam is the superior outcome. You have now made a prediction that current Iraqis' standard of living will not exceed that of 1991 in their lifetimes. People who make predictions of great certitude about events decades into the future, based upon other unknowable future events, are usually engaging in stupidity, often out of an unacknowledged desire to support their ideology. This is no exception.

Having exceeded my weekly ration of reading stupid and dishonest commentary, I'll say, once again (sigh) good-bye. Tell ya' what; I'll ignore your posts in the future, and you can feel free to ignore mine.

d-squared, the question has premises which cannot be accepted. It entails that we believe Bin Laden, when there is no reason to do so. It also ignores that Bin Laden never made a non-violent attempt to enlist the U.S. aid in removing Hussein. Now, if we hypothetically concede the truth of such a statement of Bin Laden, it becomes similar to discussing the conspiracy theory that FDR allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to succeed in order to get the population of the U.S. committed to enetering WWII. If such an event occurred, and had been discovered, FDR would have had to have been tried for treason, and hung, even theough entry into WWII was a good thing. Similarly, if it was discovered that Bin Laden had such a plan, Bin laden would need to be killed, although ending Hussein's regime is an improvement. If other international actors conclude that the U.S. removal of Hussein is threatening to their citizens, in the case of legitimate governments, or their regimes, in the case of illegitimate ones, then those countries will seek to reduce U.S. ability to do so. I would expect Syria to adopt this attitude, absent a revelation on the part of Bashir Assad. It is up to the United States to convince legitmate governments that they are not threatened by the action of the United States against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Will, your head is thicker than your skin by far. I actually don't believe that there is, against you, ANY effective method of argumentation. I'm just beating my head against the wall and pissing against the wind.

Regardless of which rhetorical device you ever-so-cleverly choose to cloak it in, dragging in the murder of the kulaks and everything else Lenin and Stalin did whenever you disagree with someone on a specific point is dirty pool. You do it, Thomsen does, it, some guy I can't remember did it a couple of days ago, and I think, but am not sure, Bucky Dent does it. Stalinism is not the only alternative to freemarket liberalism, and people who disagree with you about specific points seldom deserve to see the Stalinist comparison dragged in, regardless of hypotheticals or other thetorical fig leaves..

I have a thin skin about this kind of thing. Why shouldn't I? I plead guilty to responding in kind and escalating.

Will -

It doesn't matter how often you choose to scream 'liar, liar' - with no evidence proving such...I hold no ill will for you - or any of the people on this planet.

Contrary to what you seem to believe - it is possible to address the stupid, obstinate and dishonest people of this world without disdain, contempt or spite. My participation in this discussion with you should have been your first clue.

Enjoy ;)

Zizka, it cannot actually be that your reading comprehension skills are as low as you let on, or, as an alternative, that you hallucinate as readily as you appear. The phrase:

"Stalinism is not the only alternative to freemarket liberalism...."

has nothing to do with anything I've written, so your insertion of this phrase into this overy-long dialogue is entirely pointless. The phrase:

"dragging in the murder of the kulaks and everything else Lenin and Stalin did whenever you disagree with someone on a specific point is dirty pool."

borders on an outright lie, since in the thread above I have engaged in disagreements with people without mentioning the kulaks or other mass murders, and have clearly, repeatedly (do you truly have this much difficulty comprehending the written word?) said that one could be anti-war without being an apoligist for tyranny.

I mentioned the Kulaks when it was proposed that the example of thousands and thousands of Russian pensioners (Nick Sweeney's contribution), or even a broader material decrease among the Russian population (yours) meant that it was uncertain whether the demise of Soviet tyranny was overall a good thing for the Russian people. Your quote:

"The defeat of the Soviet Union, the Taliban, and Saddam was unquestionably a good thing for the U.S. Whether it was a good thing for the Russians, the Afghans, and the Iraqis remains to be seen."

To make such a statement about the Soviet Union without regard to the historically demonstrated, over several decades (the Kulaks weren't alone), need of the Soviet regime to rely on mass murder as a required element of control, logically leads to very simple rhetorical assertion, outlining the either/or aspect to this particular circumstance. One is forced to choose, in terms of what would be better for the Russian people, between the continuance of a regime which has not demonstrated, over any appreciable length of time, the ability to maintain control except through mass murder, and the demise of the regime, which is followed by a decrease in material well being, while noting that there is no way to know whether the material deprivation could have been avoided if the regime had stayed in power. Note that this has nothing to do with the entirely different proposition that, "Stalinism is not the only alternative to freemarket liberalism", which is something out your fevered imaginations of what I may have written about.

That you do not like to have the logical implications of your assertions pointed out to you does not mean that I am guilty of "dragging in the murder of the kulaks and everything else Lenin and Stalin did whenever you disagree with someone on a specific point...." If you continue to maintain otherwise, then the limits of my ability to provide remedial reading instruction have been exhausted, or I am simply forced to conclude that you wish to argue about things that you wish I had written, as opposed to what I did, while tossing in your pointless, tiresome, ad hominem remarks, for what purpose only your mind might be able to conceive.

Will, your educational skills are limited indeed. You crank out shit more energetically than anyone I've ever debated with, though. The lack of respect is mutual.

Zizka,

Will may have a point on your reading comprehension. First is my quote:

“Could more effort have been made to secure those sites? Probably! Is it a clear cut case that more should have been done? Not even close! You would have to know all of the information being looked at by the troops in the field to make a case that guarding museums should have been a higher priority at that time. Even knowing that tanks and troops were "just down the street" doesn't mean that they should have abandon[ed] their positions to protect museums.”

Now here is your response:

“There was plenty of warning that the museum was threatened. Lots. American troops already there were pulled back. All from the newspapers, not secret information of mine.”

Do you KNOW why the troops were pulled back? Can you state authoritatively that there was no good reason for those troops to pull back?

As you are thinking about these two questions, cling to the following facts: 1) no advance orders were given; 2) troop strength is lower than usual; 3) field commanders are recieving lots of information - some of it potentially more urgent than the need to protect museums; and, 4) field commanders might prioritize this information differently than yourself.