gene90 addressing stock dilemma criticism writes:
What are those alternatives...
Some have already been stated. You have simply not addressed them.
gene90 addressing stock dilemma criticism writes:
...what is the the probability of success, and how long would it take?
Good question, but irrelevant to whether you have used the stock dilemma. One might add that in addition to probability of success and duration, one should also assess legality, and longterm consequences regarding our credibility and impact on international law.
gene90 writes:
If you remember, we tried alternatives to war. Twelve years ago sanctions were imposed. Saddam flourished while the people fell even further into poverty.
This is inaccurate. It is merely a continuation of the false alternatives fallacy.
The sanctions/inspections process originally put in place was not as rigorous as it should have been, nor was it backed as it should have been (by a credible threat of force). This was not the only process available as a diplomatic alternative, and as alternatives go it was a poor one.
9-11 prompted a review of the sanctions/inspection process. That is when we saw a more realistic carrot-stick approach which began bearing results. Bush's rhetoric was unnecessary and unhelpful, but his basic actions of forcing a new dynamic of aggressive inspections was warranted. This was also not the only diplomatic alternative, but it was working better than the one in place for the last 12 years.
gene90 writes:
Months ago Saddam was offered asylum. He refused. Bush gave him a 48 hour deadline. He still refused.
This was not a diplomatic alternative at all. It was a provocative rejection of the new dynamic which appeared to be working, replacing diplomacy with a baldfaced threats. It had a flimsy justification and almost zero probability of success (and ultimately did fail).
Bush's only legal justification for such an action was the imminent WMD threat that he claimed at the time, which even you do not seem to believe was real. That makes our action illegal, even if our goal was admirable.
Just as the goal of liberating Palestinians from Isreali oppression may seem admirable to many, but that in no way makes terrorist actions in support of that liberation legal.
gene90 writes:
Alternatives failed. War succeeded.
If the only alternatives were the ones already tried, and we ignore that one which was working was dropped without justification, then you would be correct.
War did succeed in taking Saddam out of power. Whoever questioned this would be the result of war, would have been wrong. But this did not make war right, or even the best alternative, only the quickest.
gene90 writes:
By the way, I never saw any protestors on TV with signs presenting alternatives.
Signs would be too small to present real alternatives. But many protestors (admittedly not all) had alternatives, including ones that addressed humanitarian concerns. Of course you did not get to hear them, because of that huge "liberal media bias" going on.
gene90 writes:
By the way, I believe the US tried for years to get rid of Castro without a full scale assault by American armed forces. Guess who's still running things down there?
And are we threatened by Cuba in some way? This actually works as a counterexample to your own claims. Even republicans have noted that many remaining problems in Cuba relate to our continued (and ineffective) embargo, and not Castro. Are you seriously suggesting we should violate international law to invade Cuba as well?
gene90 writes:
Actually Holmes, I wanted Saddam gone in 1991, and in 1998...
I was pro-war before Bush came into office.
Well that still makes me anti-saddam and certainly anti-Taliban... according to your rules not mine... before you.
People were protesting Rumsfeld's and Reagan's and Bush's and Cheney's support for Saddam in Iraq, as well as Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan long before 91 and 98. Back then we could have simply not supported these nuts, instead of arming them until the time we had to (predictably) go in to remove them, or put them under diplomatic sanctions.
gene90 writes:
No actually that's not my definition. People who don't agree with Bush but don't try to persuade others aren't necessarily pro-Saddam.
Okay, I get what you're saying, but this isn't exactly what your equation said. It said being against the war (not just protesting against it) was pro-Saddam.
gene90 writes:
The people who make signs and go march, and worse block traffic, were actively supporting Saddam Hussein, just as the US once did.
This is not true. Once the war began protests were pointless, and in the case of traffic blockers, annoying and counterproductive for their own cause. But they did not influence the outcome of this war in one direction or the other.
gene90 writes:
Bush didn't make his opponets sit on glass bottles until their intestines were slashed into bleeding rags, holmes. You will never be able to compare a republic with a bill of rights and constitutional limits to Saddam's regime. To even try would be offensive but I'm not surprised that would do so.
It is an undeniable fact that the CIA "renders" suspects to countries that do just this kind of thing when we need info fast. This was admitted by CIA officials over the last several years on public TV no less. About the only thing which is unknown is how many might have been rendered to Iraq when Saddam was our pal.
You have dodged the fact twice now that Bush and Co are stripping our bill of rights in pursuit of the War on Terror. I readily admitted that we are not even close to the intents and methodology of Saddam. But we have certainly fallen from our position of world leader of rights and democracy.
gene90 writes:
Perhaps so. Or maybe just a weak ruler who bowed to international pressure when he should not have. We don't know what he actually would have liked to have done.
Conjecturing is unnecessary. Bush Sr has already talked about why he did not continue to Baghdad and chastised Jr for his hasty unilateral march to war this time.
It is not weakness to take into account international opinion, or seek such support, unless one's country is in imminent danger. However it is arrogant to do the opposite, as Bush Jr himself said during his election campaign.
gene90 writes:
Which makes this an interesting point. Do you admit that the primary reason Saddam was still in power is because of the UN?
ABSOLUTELY. The UN did not do all that it could have or should have, especially with respect to regulations after the first gulf war. It should have fast-tracked inspections and sanctions (the latter meaning proof the aid was getting to civilians). This may very well have resulted in a second gulf war, but so be it. That would have been the right time and for the right reasons.
However, since the role of the UN is to keep the peace between nations, and not to remove tyrants within nations, its weakness regarding Iraq is somewhat understandable, if not really an excuse.
Now will you admit that the ONLY reason Saddam was ever in power in the first place, was firm support by western powers, most notably Rumsfeld, Reagan, and Bush? And that many of those killed and tortured by Saddam, especially the Kurds, were brutalized with US knowledge as well as political and military support?
If the US had not put him in power, the UN would never have been placed in the awkward position of having to take him out.
gene90 writes:
I've been on this board a heck of a lot longer than you (are you even a member yet?) and it is not "dominated" by Christian theology.
Whoops. By "dominated" I did not mean "ruled". What I meant was that the dominant theology presented on these boards are Xtian in nature.
Please stop hyping how long you've been here. That has no relevence to whether your arguments are valid or mine are not.
gene90 writes:
I haven't heard of any Amish protests. They may not agree with war even in principle but they are not actively supporting dictators by opposing liberation.
I'm assuming this is a joke. Neither the Amish nor the anti-war protestors opposed liberation of the Iraqi people. But to the pacifist contingent of both groups, war never equals liberation and so will always be opposed.
This is why it is offensive to deride pacifists protesting the war as supporting dictators, or opposing liberation. They simply wish to achieve liberation by convincing others to nonviolence through example.
It may not be the quickest way to freedom. But it is the only method which keeps everyone's hands clean (from their point of view).
gene90 writes:
You speak for Christ?
Do I really have to? I think the words of the Bible speak for themselves. But if you need help with interpretations all but some evangelical religious leaders firmly opposed the war, including the leader of Bush's own denomination.
gene90 writes:
No for Christ because he is not necessarily anti-war. (Lots of non-Christian members of the Left like to call him a warmonger, now you are trying
to make him a hippie? He was a liberal for his time but I *think* he would be a moderate who would want to liberate Iraq.)
I guess I'll take your word for it that some liberals call Christ a warmonger... never heard it myself. And I never said he was a hippie. Please stop putting words in my mouth and telling me what I do (as if I am a stereotyped bleeding heart liberal).
While God endorsed certain acts of violence, Christ was clearly against warfare and the idea that he would approve bombing Iraq to liberate the populace seems borderline blasphemy. My guess is he'd have been active in getting Iraqis to liberate themselves (through a form of passive resistance).
How do you square your opinion with the interpretation of every major Xtian leader? I don't mean this as an insult. I want to know what teachings of Christ lead you to such an opposite conclusion... biblical references?
gene90 writes:
You think... Saddam is somehow going to keep his WMD program running full throttle there? And you think the terrorist camps would continue running?
This was never my argument. Assuming that WMDs and WMD technology existed in Iraq, war was not going to eliminate them, or prevent them from being passed on to terrorist organizations or other nations. Yes it would stop Saddam from using them, but it does not eliminate them and it only increased the chance he would trade them before his demise.
This criticism was made by worldwide intelligence authorities (hardly liberals), and I put that question to pro-war supporters on this board. There has been no response to it at all.
Rumsfeld has confirmed this criticism to be accurate as he now admits WMDs may have been transferred during the fog of war, and Iraqi scientists will need to be prevented from "living free". Short of lifetime imprisonment, there will be no guarantee that Iraqi WMD technology will spread, particularly in a newly freed Iraq which is poor and scientists have valuable knowledge to sell.
gene90 writes:
Do you think we should have signed a peace treaty with Hitler?
This analogy has already been shot down. Hitler invaded countries and so needed to be stopped. At the very least pushed back, contained, and disempowered before the need for WW2. I would never have supported appeasement of Hitler or Saddam.
Interestingly enough it was the US filling the role of 1930's Germany this time. While the intention was different, the "appeasement" we were requesting was much the same. We were asking the world to allow us to attack another country for reasons of national security, when there was no imminent threat in existence. It was no wonder most of the world balked at this, particularly the UN.
gene90 writes:
Actually, last I heard, we were still at war with al-Qaeda, rather than "supporting" them.
Iraq has diverted efforts that could have been used to finish the war with Al-Queda, including putting greater pressure on--- or "assistance" to--- Pakistan in order to catch BinLaden.
You still haven't admitted that your rules make Bush "pro" various terrorist organizations and dictatorial regimes. His championing diplomacy over war with NKorea (unquestionably a greater threat to its neighbors and the US than Iraq) makes him totally "pro-Kim Jung il."
------------------
holmes
™ Version 4.2
