Children freed from prisons in Iraq

Weapons inspections. It wasn’t perfect, but it was apparently viable. We haven’t found any WMD yet. While there is a lot of speculation going on these days about Iraq’s WMD capabilities, here is a fact. We have made more progress disarming Iraq of WMD using weapons inspectors that we have using military solutions.

Now Tom, you KNOW half those things on your list were tried already, don’t be like that.
You’re just naming things we’ve done to other countries at one point or another, and some things we’ve done to Iraq already. Or tried to do but were blocked. I’m actually dissapointed in that list Tom.

Tim, the sanctions in no way stopped food and medical supplies, in fact it was designed so that they could ONLY buy those things with most of their oil money. Saddam was withholding those things from his people on purpose, dying people can’t revolt can they? And besides, as Tom points out, if we kept up the sanctions, or even escalated them, there might not have been a war. However I somehow doubt that a man with 14 palaces with solid gold bathroom fixtures forgot to stock up some food and water.

Edit:

Tim, they did diddly squat for 12 years, and once we parked 200,000 troops on his front lawn Saddam started to cooperate. You think he just forgot he had 120 banned missiles until we were on his door step? No, he just saw no reason to give them up. Everyone is focusing on WMD and overlooking the nests they found of other banned weapons.So do you wanna keep 200,000 men in the desert till Saddam’s dead? Then until his son is dead? Then until HIS son is dead? We’ve been over this.

Now Tom, you KNOW half those things on your list were tried already, don’t be like that.

Sure, in a desultory manner by three different administrations with varying degrees of commitment to their outcome.

Many of them showed results, too. If you buy into this crap about how Saddam cannot be deterred, you must have a pretty selective memory.

 -Tom

And for the bonus we could have done away with the sanctions. That would provide a change to the status quo and end some of the horrible oppression. It does nothing for regime change.

Yeah, cause we haven’t been trying any of those in the last 12 years. We enforced embargoes for years, but places like France have lost interest in that kind of clap-trap. International concensus and UN involvement would have been nice, but the UN didn’t want to play and was determined not to. I don’t know what your ideas of Air strikes, diplomatic pressure, financial incentives and backroom dealings are, but it seems to me we’ve been through all that and gotten nowhere. Assassination sounds good, but it’s not like no one’s tried. Internal opposition has been ut down so many times it’s unlikely to have ever had meaningful effect without us there on the ground in tank collums blowing the shit out of Saddam’s armor. Some of your suggestions, like UN occupation and inspections backed by troops would have been seen as invasions and we’d be looking at a full scale war with America, Britain and Australia on one side (and token involvement of, let’s say, Italy and Brazil), and Saddam’s boys on the other with the civies in the middle. All roads lead to the same place, assuming we wanted to actually do something about Iraq. Many in Europe, for all their international sensitivity, are simply isolationists who don’t care what’s happening down there, so long as the checks all clear and the oil keeps flowing. What we’re doing now is simply the best option in a shitty set of options. Could’ve, would’ve, should’ve is all fine and good, but that would have required Saddam being interested in avoiding war, and the UN’s interest in effecting change.

Good idea, then Saddam would have even a larger budget and no trade restrictions to hinder his pursuit of nuclear weapons. France could box up a reactor and ship it out today if his credit checks out!

Cause dictators have a wishy-washy way about them that makes them so easy to get rid of.

Wait. Lemme get the phone. What’s that Castro? You’re throwing 80 political prisoners a day into prison for trying to start a petition to oust you? You say your economy is plunged to it’s worst in years and you have plenty of cigars and rum? You say there are some Congressmen trying to lift the embargo on your country? It’s been on you for HOW long???

So you guys do understand, then, that there were alternatives?

Hopefully, I’ve disabused you of your blind pro-war rhetoric about how we had to go to war because there was no alternative. You don’t like the alternatives. You seem to think they wouldn’t have worked. Fine. Many of us disagree. Many of us have seen how they worked, to varying degrees, against Hussein’s regime and others like his.

Unfortunately, we’ll never know how they would have played out thanks to our cowboy President’s lack of foresight.

 -Tom

But they are alternatives that didn’t work or weren’t possible. It’s like saying ‘Well you don’t HAVE to get older.’
I feel like I just corrected someone and they came back with ‘Exactly my point.’

Tim, the sanctions in no way stopped food and medical supplies, in fact it was designed so that they could ONLY buy those things with most of their oil money. Saddam was withholding those things from his people on purpose, dying people can’t revolt can they?

Agreed, the sanctions were not working as planned. My point being that we should not have continued with the program if it was being used for evil.

Only if you consider all the disarmerment we did achieve diddly, or the fact that we haven’t found any WMD. Weapons inspections were actually quite effective in the early 90s. Did you know this?

So do you wanna keep 200,000 men in the desert till Saddam’s dead? Then until his son is dead? Then until HIS son is dead? We’ve been over this.

Fine by me. Or we could send half of them home until weapons inspections started to get funky again, or we come up with a better solution that doesn’t involve risking civilian lives, including Iraqi children.

Only if you consider all the disarmerment we did achieve diddly, or the fact that we haven’t found any WMD. Weapons inspections were actually quite effective in the early 90s. Did you know this?[/quote]
Then they stopped being effective. Your plan is to go to the brink of war, wait till Saddam cooperates, pull back and wait five years. Go to the brink of war, wait till Saddam cooperates, pull back ad infinitum. Can you see where that may not be the best idea?

[quote]So do you wanna keep 200,000 men in the desert till Saddam’s dead? Then until his son is dead? Then until HIS son is dead? We’ve been over this.

Fine by me. Or we could send half of them home until weapons inspections started to get funky again, or we come up with a better solution that doesn’t involve risking civilian lives, including Iraqi children.[/quote]
See above logic loop.
And not ousting Saddam was costing lives anyway. I’m not saying they should die cause they were going to anyway. I’m saying that 50% chance of dying is a truckload better than 100%.
So doing something risks death, doing nothing guarantees death.

Good idea, then Saddam would have even a larger budget and no trade restrictions to hinder his pursuit of nuclear weapons. France could box up a reactor and ship it out today if his credit checks out![/quote]

Well, fine, at least you understand it’s not really about protecting the Iraqi children.

Then they stopped being effective. Your plan is to go to the brink of war, wait till Saddam cooperates, pull back and wait five years. Go to the brink of war, wait till Saddam cooperates, pull back ad infinitum. Can you see where that may not be the best idea?

Great, so you can read the future now. Too bad you couldn’t see the huge dearth of WMD in Iraq 3 weeks ago.

Ummm nooooo, that’s what we WERE doing for the last twelve years, that’s the point and why it’s so significant. Granted Saddam MAY have a change of heart and get bored with doing it over and over again for now and forever, but I’m gonna say it’s more likely that he’ll stay the path that’s worked for him for so long. Why exactly do you think the sanctions were put on him in the first place?

This just in. Captain Cookiepants’s website is coded by a team of Iraqi schoolchildren compensated with complementary sixty-page “Wit and Wisdom of The Cap’n” pamphlets and a signed photos of his pustulent lobotomy scar.

Well, I cannot comprehend your post.

I am either too tired, or you are not making sense… it’s probably you. :) At any rate, I am going to let you have the last word tonight, Cookiepants.

Well, fine, at least you understand it’s not really about protecting the Iraqi children.

I would say that preventing a nuclear conflict in the region is very much in the interest of the Iraqi children. Stop trying to compartmentalize.

I would say that preventing a nuclear conflict in the region is very much in the interest of the Iraqi children. Stop trying to compartmentalize.

Then the entire Cold War was also for the Iraqi children? Stop being a reductionist to the point of asburdity, Brad. You pro-war people really have a problem with understanding your motives, don’t you? Because god knows, you’re doing a sorry job of communicating them…

(I’d put a smiley here, since I don’t mean it to sound like I’m bashing Brad in particular, but I’m actually serious about this being a significant failing of the Administration and its supporters.)

And just to quickly reiterate what I was getting at before (these threads really are pointless and would be better suited to an hour or two over beers), invading Iraq was a policy decision. It was a choice made by the Bush Administration. It was not something they were forced to do. They were not out of alternatives. They had other options.

The real disagreement is not whether it was the only choice but whether it was the best choice. Just because you maintain it was the best choice, you’d be pretty hard pressed to demonstrate that it was the only choice.

 -Tom

I don’t have trouble understanding my motives, though I seem to have a great deal of trouble successfully communicating the fact that my support of the war is the result of a confluence of divergent factors. I don’t support the war exclusively for any one reason, much to the amazement of so many anti-war types. Added up I think the forced removal of Saddam’s regime was in the best interest of the US, the Iraqi people, international security and the world economy. My comment above was simply in response to Tim’s post, my effort to remind him that allowing Saddam to arm himself with nuclear weapons probably would not go well for the children of Iraq.

(I’d put a smiley here, since I don’t mean it to sound like I’m bashing Brad in particular, but I’m actually serious about this being a significant failing of the Administration and its supporters.)

Hey, don’t lump me in with the administration, if anything lump me in with Tony Blair. I’m for the war, but that doesn’t make me a Republican yes man. I don’t assume you’re Michael Moore’s cabana boy, do I?

And just to quickly reiterate what I was getting at before (these threads really are pointless and would be better suited to an hour or two over beers), invading Iraq was a policy decision. It was a choice made by the Bush Administration. It was not something they were forced to do. They were not out of alternatives. They had other options.

The real disagreement is not whether it was the only choice but whether it was the best choice. Just because you maintain it was the best choice, you’d be pretty hard pressed to demonstrate that it was the only choice.

 -Tom

I would agree with that, I never said we were without alternative options, only that those alternatives were even less desirable than the war in which we are now involved. There are always option, and they are myriad. We could have nuked ourselves into oblivion. We could have taken advantage of the current diplomatic climate to annex Canada. We could have pulled the plug on Israel and moved to New Zealand to be with, and worship Peter Jackson. We always have a choice, unless we want to go into some discussion of determinism in which case we could just excuse everybody’s behavior as being out of their hands.

The real disagreement is not whether it was the only choice but whether it was the best choice. Just because you maintain it was the best choice, you’d be pretty hard pressed to demonstrate that it was the only choice.

Pollack did an excellent job of this, but then again, how would you know, since you won’t even bother to read the book, and the argument cannot be effectively condensed into a verbally-mathematical blurb for quick skimming? Your problem isn’t that the pro-war movement hasn’t made its case: your problem is you can’t be bothered to read it.

Anyway, the pro-war movement doesn’t need to “make its case”. The war has done that for us. Children being held in jail cells to blackmail their parents. Massive deposits of chemical and biological weapons being discovered. An entire warehouse full of the tortured, mutilated and finally executed human beings discarded in bin liners and fertiliser bags, found in Az Zubayr. Members of Al Qaeda flooding into Iraq to fight at the side of Saddam Hussein. Remember when you called all these sorts of things “random fantasies”, Tom? Remember when the anti-war movement as a whole said that there was no evidence for any of these things, especially the chemical weapons and Al Qaeda stuff? And now they’ve all been proven to be true. Watch what happens next - we find Saddam’s nuclear program, and it is far more advanced than anyone thought.

Coupled with the huge number of Iraqis taking to the streets to cheer their liberators, a pathetic Iraqi resistance,. and one of (if not) the least bloody occupations of an enemy country in modern military history both for civilians and soldiers - I’m just surprised you can still say that there is any genuine reason why it would have been better for the Iraqi people if we just let them live in Nightmareland indefinitely while the UN talking heads continue to ignore the problem for another couple of decades. Everything coming out if Iraq suggests that the Iraqis themselves certainly don’t see that as having been preferrable.

That story you linked to cites NPR and was dated Monday, April 7th.

This story is dated Tuesday, April 8th:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/098/nation/Cache_being_tested_for_chemical_agents+.shtml

These officials also said they were investigating reports of another alleged weapons site near Baghdad. National Public Radio yesterday reported that coalition forces had found about 20 surface-to-surface missiles armed with nerve gas at that site. The Pentagon declined to comment publicly on that report.

The Pentagon has not confirmed the NPR story is true. If they are not comfortable saying so, when they have so much motivation to trumpet such a find, I wouldn’t be quite so hasty.