For the most part I agree bbart. Darfur….maybe not. Sudan has long been a haven for AQ. Of course, when a nation needs help fighting our enemies, and asks for help, it doesn’t always have to be an invasion. It can be airstrikes (Kosovo, Bosnia), or naval protection (Kuwait, Saudi, UAE, etc), or Special Operations and air support (the Downing Model-see also Afghanistan), or other military options. In Iraq, there are often several examples of almost every type of military and diplomatic option having been tried and failed prior to the invasion. Support for Darfur (for example) might come in the form of Special Operations and air support. Support for Somalia might be naval support. Different nations need different things, and our commitment should be-as you so well point out-varied in scale to the needs (ours and theirs). However, I do agree that working with allies is preferred-not necessary and certainly not mandatory, but preferred.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sure thing. But I wasn’t arguing about the security rationale for invading Iraq; that’s rather a separate issue from the question of whether the USA should act to aid people in situations where the humanitarian issues are clear, but there is no meaningful security threat to the US. Congo, Darfur, Zimbabwe and so on…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Be It Resolved…Or Not…You Decide…

Here is a map that depicts what happens when there is a True Conservative running for the Presidency of The United States. John McCain needs to know that we Reagan Era Conservatives will be watching him like a Hawk….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

btw, here’s the list of WMD that the UN had just 2wks before the invasion followed by the reasons for the war in Iraq:

Security Council resolution 687 (1991) called for the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, inter alia, of all Iraq’s research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related to CW activity.

UNSCOM also estimated that based on unaccounted for growth media, Iraq’s potential production of anthrax could have been in the range of about 15,000 to 25,000 litres.

Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 litres of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist.

In December 1998, there were over 20 spray dryers and 70 freeze dryers under inventory control including some of these items that could be used for the drying of bulk BW agent. In addition, there was evidence that Iraq was developing the capability of indigenously manufacturing spray dryers.

Iraq currently possesses the technology and materials, including fermenters, bacterial growth media and seed stock, to enable it to produce anthrax. Many of the skilled personnel familiar with anthrax production have been transferred to civilian industries.

Since Iraq produced more botulinum toxin than other agents and it still possesses the expertise and possibly the seed stock, material inputs (such as growth media), and equipment (fermenters), then production at least at the scale of its pre-1991 level could be rapidly recommenced.

The production and downstream processing equipment needed for Clostridium perfringens is available in Iraq in the civilian sector such as at vaccine plants.

Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 – 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 – 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent.

The assertion that aflatoxin was one of the agents investigated by Iraq in its BW programme is supported by the analysis of video tapes of field trials found in the Haidar Farm cache as well as documents and information provided by Iraq. There is little doubt that, as Iraq declared, aflatoxin was designated as agent C for the purposes of research, development and production.

Iraq has demonstrated the ability to manufacture both chemical and biological equipment, such as simple process equipment and fermenters.

While Iraq’s inventory of aerial chemical and biological bombs was presumably eliminated, its ability to reconstitute that inventory remains largely intact.

Iraq still had significant stocks of conventional 122-mm warheads and 155-mm projectiles similar to those previously modified for use with chemical agents. Iraq’s industries appear fully capable of modifying these conventional munitions for use with chemical agents as well as the indigenous production of most or all of their components.

Except for the artillery rocket and three aerial bombs filled with VX for corrosion and stability tests, Iraq declared that VX had not been weaponized. However, in April/May 1998, UNSCOM took remnants of missile warheads that had been unilaterally destroyed by Iraq for analysis. The analysis showed traces of VX degradation products, and a chemical known to be a stabilizer for VX.

There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. The mustard filled shells account for a couple of tonnes of agent while the aerial bombs account for approximately 70 tonnes

Iraq is self-sufficient with respect to the availability of starting materials required for production of Mustard

It is known that Iraq had tested different types of aerial spray or other devices capable of disseminating Mustard agent.

Of concern is the more general question of Iraq’s intentions with respect to RPVs as CBW delivery systems and the relationship to the spray tank development.

Given Iraq’s history of concealment with respect to its VX programme it cannot be excluded that it has retained some capability with regard to VX.

Iraq’s account of the number of bombs and warheads filled with anthrax has changed on several occasions.

There has been a surge of activity in the missile technology field in Iraq in the past four years.

In attempting to acquire not only operational missiles but also the associated know-how and the means of production of a two-stage missile with a solid rocket motor and a liquid propulsion engine, Iraq had apparently sought to establish a sound technological basis for an industrial infrastructure capable of producing an advanced short-range ballistic missile (SRBM – up to 1000 kilometres range).

A number of areas of uncertainty regarding Iraq ballistic missile programmes still exist. Many of these relate to Iraq’s unilateral destruction of missile components and propellants. Other areas relate to imports, accountancy and material balance questions.
[for a FULL list of the wmd reasons for the invasion of Iraq as well as a corellating list of things the UN said Iraq could do to resolve/end each issue, please google "Unresolved disarmament issues"]
——
*****
Primary reason:
* to prevent a Nexus of Evil situation
* to prevent UBL from setting up headquarters in Iraq as Saddam had annually and bi-annually requested for 5 yrs. UBL had turned down each offer based on the idea that he was safer in Afghanistan, but driven from Afghanistan in 2001/2…the possibility of UBL moving AQ HQ to Iraq was much more likely and easily a worst case scenario for the war on terror (see also 911 Comm report and SIC 911 report and SIC Iraq investigation report for details OR multiple RR threads on “AQ’s ties to Iraq per _____”)

Secondary reason:
* to remove/resolve the hundreds unresolved WMD issues (any one of which could kill thousands in the hands of an Iraqi trained terrorist-like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi
* to get the hundreds of AQ terrorist who fled Afghanistan to Iraq
* to end Iraqi support for terrorists in general

Tertiary reasons:
* to create a battlefield against terrorists made of America’s choosing-not the terrorists preference (UBL’s preference was Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires where he felt he had already destroyed one superpower)
* to create a bastion of democracy in the middle of a region plagued by tyranny and oppression…things that spawn terrorism
* to drain the swamp of terrorists in the region; ie, to draw terrorists into a fight against the US military and not the Springfield, Ohio police Department
* to offer the Iraqi people a chance at restoring their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-rights that some Americans believe are endowed to all men by the creator
* to end the 4000-5000 Iraqis per month who were dying because of UN sanctions per the UN’s claims
* to prevent Saddam from continuing to terrorize the Iraqi people and his neighbors (all but one of which he had attacked)
* to support a legitimate govt in Iraq.
* to position US forces in a more threatening/deterring position to Iran, Syria, etc.
* With Al Queda’s #1 and #2 leaders pinned in Waziristan/Pakistan, as a means of going after the Al Queda’s #3 man, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had already attempted to kill hundreds of thousands in London, Rome, Paris, and Jordan using chemical and biological weapons via training he had been given from Saddam
* To end the funding of Palestinian terrorists by Saddam and thus help deter bi-weekly suicide bus bombings that had completely derailed the peace process
* to prevent the funding of Al Queda by Iraq through the mega-corrupt UN Oil-for-Food program
* to shift American oil dependence (and funding) from terrorist-breeding-ground of Saudi Arabia to a Democratic and representative govt in Iraq
and so on…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I mentioned pork in response to your comment about budgets. I don’t think virtual herbariums should be bought instead of helping out a nation in need. Same is true for studies on the mating habits of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly in temperate climates, and other BS schemes. On average, the war in Iraq costs about $100bn a year (before invasion, during invasion, and post-war). Pork costs about $100bn a year too.

As to why we had to invade Iraq, yes, I too believe US security first, and to that end yes we had to invade. Saddam had ties to Al Queda (our enemy that openly declared it wanted WMD), and Saddam refused to come clean on his WMD. The “he never had any” idea is false since he had declared wmd in 1998, and those wmd issues remained “Unresolved Disarmament Issues” per the UN as late as 2wks before the invasion. Given the new concern about AQ, the Iraqi WMD issue couldn’t be left unanswered indefinitely/it had to be resolved.
We tried diplomacy from 1/01 through 9/02.
We tried diplomacy with the credible threat of force from 9/02-3/03
Inspections clearly didn’t work since the pics from the ISG report show that Saddam had successfully hidden illegal stuff, since on over half of the Unresolved Disarmament Issues Saddam had in fact successfully been caught breaking the terms of the 91 cease-fire, and since the only other option besides inspections was sanctions. Since we now know via Saddam himself that as soon as sanctions were gone he was gonna restart his programs (a process that could be done in hours in some cases), then lifting sanctions wasn’t gonna work either.

There was a loooooooooong list of other reasons too. Humanitarian was one, but low on the list imo. It didn’t rise to the top until other, more imperative reasons were resolved; after the invasion. At that point, the UN mandated that the US and the international force of nations that had invaded Iraq MUST STAY IN IRAQ until sovereignty and order is restored or until the Iraqis ask us to leave.

Imagine…invasion might actually have been the last resort, and all the other talking points from the anti-war folks might…just might…be as propaganda-laden as their “projections” of how much the war costs in dollars or in lives.

Opponents of the war so often love to suggest that the US was misled by neocons who said the war would be a cakewalk, and/or that its cost would be almost nothing because of Iraq’s oil. Meanwhile, those same critics will with equal or greater vigor distort the cost in the opposite direction to suit their own needs.

I was opposed to the war in Iraq until 3/6/03. On that day I got tired of looking at the BS from the left and the right, and I took the time to actually read what the UN was talking about. I tried to put together a checklist of my own of the WMD issues. The way they were all talking about em, I had no idea what they were really looking for. So, I read the UN report, and my mind was changed. When I read the ISG report, and I saw all those pictures, I knew the decision was the right one. Then one day I tried to list out the reasons given for the war (someone prodded me into doing this as they argued that the Bush Admin was moving the goalposts). The list was huge. It’s a pile of kindling built up over years and years so high that the pile was a bigger reason for the war than the spark imo.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

the pork blows it away

Probably depends on how you define ‘pork’. I’m guessing you’d need to throw in some entitlement spending to put pork over the top. But that’s not really relevant; pointing out that we do this other stupid thing that also costs a lot of money doesn’t mean that our spending on humanitarian intervention is worthwhile.
Basing your calculations on the value of American life on our GDP is interesting, but it’s apples and oranges if you want to compare that to the costs spent freeing Iraqis.

the US had to invade Iraq,

Based on what? The UN resolution? The humanitarian imperative? Or the threat to our security? If you’re going to say ‘had to‘ then I would only accept arguments based on security.

I don’t have a problem with mass immigration

Well, I’ll grant you the virtue of consistency then. Sounds like we will just have to disagree wildly about the proper role and scope of our government. It sounds like you at least have an idea of the costs involved in this grand project, and want to carry it out anyway, whereas a lot of people don’t seem to appreciate how much it will take to remake even a small part of the world.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Well Bbart, yes, I do support US participation in other international military operations aimed at security. I believe that if a nation asks for food, we should send food. If people ask for disaster relief, we should provided it. If people ask for help fighting an enemy that we’re already at war with…yeah, help em out.

Now, this idea you have of putting a price tag on people’s lives. Interesting concept. Of course, it’s based on a complete unknown and at the very least exaggerated cost of a trillion dollars. Every estimate of the cost for the war in Iraq that I’ve seen has always been an anti-war estimate that (gosh, somehow) includes the costs of the war in Afghanistan, and the cost of global anti-terrorism operations everywhere (often significant costs too btw-talking hundreds of billions). Additionally, creating an estimated cost for the war in Iraq would require more information than is available for consideration-not the least of which is the duration of the war, or the cost of responding to changes in enemy strategy (yep, that’s right, the enemy gets a say-ie, wars are not predictable).

Still, if you want to put a cost on a person’s life, let’s be fair. There are about 300,000,000 Americans producing a GDP of about $12-13,000,000,000,000 a year. The war’s been going on now since 1991 at a total cost of about 400,000 American lives (yes, Gulf War Syndrome counts), , 100,000 Iraqi soldiers in 1991′s ODS, 1-2million Iraqis killed from sanctions, another 50,000 Iraqi soldiers in OIF, another 75,000 Iraqis from OIF. So, Americans equal about $510million a life (this includes wounded, GWS, etc). Iraqis (your math of 1trill)=$454000. I dunno. Maybe my excel spreadsheet’s got things mixed up, but seems like Americans are 100x more valuable than the Iraqi lives. Irregardless, it’s moot. The war’s not over so the numbers cost of blood and treasure isn’t known or measurable, and estimates of dead per anti-war sources or estimates of dollars per anti-war sources (that openly distort figures by including 2 other theatres of ops), are simply inaccurate. Besides, if we’re all created equal, then the cost is =. Is an Iraqi life worth more than $500,000 for a Senator’s Virtual Herbarium pork project? Uh, yeah. I’ll bet good money that if you add up the pork from the past 17yrs, and add up the cost of the war against Iraq and in Iraq you’ll find that the pork blows it away.

Ultimately, the US had to invade Iraq, and now the US has to stay there (UN 1483 sec1-4).

btw, I don’t have a problem with mass immigration to the USA. Where’ve you seen me say anything like that?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

we are just lucky that these acts were not in the ConUSA

I think our existing police forces and border control employees might take issue with the idea that this is merely ‘luck’.

But anyway: though you don’t explicitly come out and say it, I gather from this post that you are in favor of the US intervening, under the right circumstances, to uphold human rights elsewhere. Even though I agree that the rights mentioned are universal, it doesn’t follow that the US should function as their global guardian. In particular, I’m curious what you would think is an appropriate price tag (for the US taxpayer) for delivering one person abroad from totalitarian bondage to freedom. In Iraq, we freed 25 million people at a projected cost of about a trillion dollars and several thousand American lives. That’s about $40,000 per Iraqi (and assumes our success will continue). Now maybe freedom itself is priceless, but we still have budgets to balance. And at the same time we were enabling the Iraqis to enjoy ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, we were curtailing our children’s ability to do the same, by saddling them with future debts.
If you want to allow a lot of foreigners to enjoy increased liberty and economic prosperity, an easier way to do it would be through vastly increased immigration. Some of the same tradeoffs take place (existing Americans suffer some disadvantages in return for the enormous gains that accrue to the new arrivals), but you don’t have to contend with the uncertainties of armed conflict, and the net balance of benefits looks a lot better. For the record I don’t advocate that policy either; but I think someone who advocates foreign interventions on humanitarian grounds, while still being strongly against mass immigration to the USA, has some inconsistencies to explain.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] similar before.  In any case, it should help to put current events in perspective.  Go read the words, and then allow yourself to have an emotional reaction to them.  Then finally consider what it [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Good point and we are just lucky that these acts were not in the ConUSA…the future is this if we are not careful!

Like or Dislike: 0  0