[thechat] Arguments for war

[Martin Burns]

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Judah McAuley wrote:

> I'll get this out of the way right now:  George Bush is a stupid fuck
> and I wouldn't follow him to a picnic let alone into a foxhole.
>
> That being said, I've actually started to find some reasonably
> intelligent analysis that supports the idea of taking out Saddam Hussein
> (and going even farther).  I'm pretty anti-war but there are arguments
> to made made that sometimes its the best option.

Well of course, there is a strong case to argue that Saddam is not the
best person you'd want in charge of a country.

However, I do have a few questions:
1) Unilaterally attacking a sovereign nation, even if you believe it's run
by a homicidal lunatic, is looked on as A Bad Thing by the international
community - that was the justification for the Gulf War in the first place
IIRC. Also remember the after effects of other wars where the US has
struck first in the face of world opinion... some country starting with V
springs to mind.

Remember also that the UN (and even close allies like Blair) are focused
on the weapons inspections. Minimum, that's going to take 6-9 months
before it can come to *any* kind of early view, let alone a definitive
conclusion. Saddam's statement of "Send 'em" was very astute, as it makes
it *very* easy to portray any early attack as being against UN
resolutions.

Speaking of UN resolutions, I seem to recall a number that are outstanding
on other nations which I'm not hearing the US banging the table about,
asking if the UN is a talking shop or a body which does something. Hey
George, Iraq's some way down the queue after Israel...

2) The argument that Saddam poses a threat to the US (or UK) is laughable.
Worst case: he has medium range nukes which can reach his Middle Eastern
nations, and has the same bio and chemical weapons which he's had for the
last 20 years, and hasn't used on other nations (although I have to say,
as a means of pissing him off and increasing the probability of that,
Bush has picked a pretty effective method). What's changed now, other than
Bush's need for an Enemy?

3) Most US intel on Iraq comes from Israel. Like that's going to be
objective and without ulterior motive. Where's the objective evidence?

4) Once Saddam's gone, then what? Again, the US track record of installing
friendly regimes and exiting cleanly is not good. I think the best we can
hope for is a smiley face on a mess (see current Afghanistan for an
example).

Answer that lot, and I think you'd be a lot closer to swaying world
opinion.

Oh, and Bush's attempt to link Iraq to Sept 11th was a despicable use of
those people's deaths.

Cheers
Martin

---------------------------
"Names, once they are in common use, quickly
 become mere sounds, their etymology being
 buried, like so many of the earth's marvels,
 beneath the dust of habit." - Salman Rushdie