Pre-war intel

[Cat Grad]

Again, Mr. Quast made some extremely good arguments for our decision to take out Sadaam. Still, I must point out as a young Captain and his spouse rather pointedly made clear--biological and chemical weapons are vehicles of mass destruction and they were found, in mass quantities.

[mquast53000]

Again, Mr. Quast made some extremely good arguments for our decision to take out Sadaam. Still, I must point out as a young Captain and his spouse rather pointedly made clear--biological and chemical weapons are vehicles of mass destruction and they were found, in mass quantities.

I agreed with this statement earlier in this thread…

I would say that mustard gas that Saddam had was a WMD. How many Kuwaitis did he kill in Desert Storm with that stuff? 100K? Biological weapons ARE WMDs. Look at the congress votes, EVERYONE across both party lines thought that there were WMDs. I can guarantee that no Democrat congressmen voted to give Bush power to invade Iraqi without convincing non-partisan intelligence.

[SonomaCat]

Although I will pose this question -- I am hearing a lot of people use the phrase "moral obligation" in speaking of this war. I can see that point perfectly -- if we can help people, we should do it.

However, in a political context, this argument takes us down a uneasy path. Do we have this same moral obligation to free ALL people from their murderous oppressive leaders? Do we have an obligation to next go into the various African countries that are experiencing genocide at the hands of their leaders? Where do we stop? What is our role in the world in this regard? Do we invade Saudi Arabia next? Their human rights record is not much better than Saddam's. The world gets really confusing when these questions are asked, and I'm not even going to pretend to know the right answers.

Moral obligation… Well here is what I think… We chose Iraq because they were a major threat that we couple topple in DAYS. This would make other threats Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and so forth see that the US means business. You turn your TV to CNN and you could watch a missile go down a bad guy’s chimney. This was a warning. Sure there are other countries that need to be dealt with, but the US is going to start with the ones that pose a REAL threat to us. There are some REALLY bad guys running some of those African countries, but they are not capable of doing and mass destruction to the US or the US’s allies (ie Israel). Iraq was the example of the US’s capabilities. Do you remember that North Korea was about to begin missile testing over Japan right before we enter Iraq? Well they held off on these missile tests… This wasn’t a “Moral Obligation” so much as it was a memorandum to the rest of the world saying “Don’t f*** with the US!” To protect America in today’s world means setting examples, and that is precisely what we did in Iraq.

That kind of sounds like how the French describe us.

If Russia acted that very same way with the very same circumstances and using the very same rationale, we would be rebuking them with extreme prejudice.

If that is, in fact, the basis of our foreign policy, we run the risk of no longer being the "good guys" (even in our own minds) very quickly.

[mquast53000]

The cowboys in the white hats get shot too, so sometimes you have to put on your black hat and kick some ass. The more ass you kick with your black hat on, the more often you can wear your white hat. You cowpokes follow my analogy?

(starting to be a long day )

[SonomaCat]

Again, Mr. Quast made some extremely good arguments for our decision to take out Sadaam. Still, I must point out as a young Captain and his spouse rather pointedly made clear--biological and chemical weapons are vehicles of mass destruction and they were found, in mass quantities.

I don't remember a lot/any bio or chem weapons being discovered, and the Captain only mentioned components of potential weapons being found (possibly similar to what could be found on MSU's campus or any other chem facility)? If there is documentation of large quantities of chem or bio weapons being found, please point me in the right direction for documentation. Everything I have read (intel commission report, inspector's reports, etc.) suggested that the sanctions in place since Gulf War I eliminated the weapons programs, and I haven't seen anything that has contradicted that. If I am missing something, please forward it along, and I would be interested in reading it.

[SonomaCat]

The cowboys in the white hats get shot too, so sometimes you have to put on your black hat and kick some ass. The more ass you kick with your black hat on, the more often you can wear your white hat. You cowpokes follow my analogy?

(starting to be a long day )

There are a long list of tyrants throughout history who thought they were wearing white hats in justifcation of their use of force.

Here's a follow-up question -- if the U.S. makes a habit out of invading countries that are weak enough to invade without fear of retribution, then what possible reason would any country on earth have for NOT conducting a clandestine effort to get a nuclear weapon? That's the only way to assure that the U.S. won't attack, isn't it?

The genie is out the bottle. The only way we are going to make it is if we learn to use a little diplomacy at some point. If we try to run the world by force, we are going to get a lot of us killed by some country with a nuke that thinks that it is wearing the white hat and we are wearing the black hat.

[briannell]

it's ironic that Quast brought up Syria, because since 1998 CHPPM (center for promotion preventative medicine) had been training other environmental agencies (CDC, Navy, Air force) in bilogical/chemical hazards, the Army intel believed to be in Syria. They also were watching very closely islamic extremist groups, and were almost dead on predicting 9/11. Although they felt that it would be a bilogical attack sent in by plane, not the plane itself used as a bomb. In fact after Brian did his stint at the Pentagon he was sent to Ft. Lewis to train the 3rd brigade Stryker unit for Syria, then 9/11 happened and they went to Mosul. If you check Mosul is a great entrance point for Syria.

in the briefings Brian had with Strom thurman and John McCain syria was the original target and is still a main concern. they have pin pointed some "concerns", but Syria is still so-so right now. Mostly, biological in nature. can say that now, because 9/11 already happened.

As for moral obligation, i think as a free society rooted in Biblical teachings, we are to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. There is no greater love than to lay down ones life for another.

As for the weather man, here in Seattle they predict rain, (it's sunny) they predict sun it rains). As for my take on politics, it's all BS!

Me i'd rather just leave it to the DC crowd. To busy convincing my son why he shouldn't try to raise a steer for the up coming 4H season.

- rebecca

[Bleedinbluengold]

that's what I was trying to point out earlier - the downside of Iraq is that those other countries that I listed are working even harder, and faster, to develop nukes. Because, you are correct, there won't be an invasion of the DPRK or Iran if they demonstrate they have a nuke. Then they get to sit at the big boys table.

BAC - Since 1990, the US has pretty much been involved every year with trying to eliminate a bad guy. so, I guess the answer to your question is that the US and its allies have a list of tyrants, and they are ticking them off one by one. The DPRK, Iran, Syria, etc., know this to be true.

Further, your wish of an ethics and politics might be like wishing for cold fusion. I hate to say it.

As you've said before, and I've agreed, the best thing for our government is gridlock. Which is why I really am having a good chuckle over the judicial appointees filibuster. I mean, what's more absurd? Conducting a 5-year filibuster, or crying and whining about it? that's off topic.

[SonomaCat]

As for moral obligation, i think as a free society rooted in Biblical teachings, we are to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. There is no greater love than to lay down ones life for another.

These posts are all very interesting and informative, and I find myself just throwing back questions and responses out of hand to keep the action moving. But in the above response, does that mean that we should invade ALL countries that have bad/abusive leaders? And would it matter what the majority religion of that country was, or would be invade them regardless of whether they liked Allah, Jesus or Buddha?

I only ask as once the name of the Bible is invoked in the name of foreign policy, a whole other can of worms is opened ... like the Crusades.

[SonomaCat]

As you've said before, and I've agreed, the best thing for our government is gridlock. Which is why I really am having a good chuckle over the judicial appointees filibuster. I mean, what's more absurd? Conducting a 5-year filibuster, or crying and whining about it? that's off topic.

I like your thinking on the filibuster debate.

[briannell]

Brad-

just throwing my opinion out there. I have strong ones and at times prone to argue (just ask shane). i am the bible thumper, not brian, and that's how I feel.

we were a country founded "under God", so morality is important in all aspects of our political decisions. When you wage war on anyone, you need to ask if it is a moral war. If it is not for the betterment of others, than it is not just. Therefore, if not just, it should not be fought. remember, this is my opinion.

-rebecca