A Simple Question

Dispatches From The American Front | January 20, 2003 | James Benton

[alloysteel]

I do not recall, that in 1941, Australia was particularly sympathic to the interests of Japan, and beating up on Australia would have been pointless. Besides, in 1941, the US was in no position to carry the war back to the Japanese. In 1945, though, the delivery to two extremely powerful weapons of mass destruction effectively silenced the Japanese in their avowed intent to make the assault upon and occupation of the home islands too costly for the United States. It was not nice, it was not even elegant, but by G-d, it was very convincing.

[borkrules]

I'm struggling with this as well.

It's difficult to write coherently about my thoughts lately regarding the imminent war with Iraq. Mainly, because the very thought of being within spitting distance of the positions of such demonstrated slime as Martin Sheen, and assorted marxist nutjobs is almost too much to take in.

But Bush and his team are simply NOT doing enough, right now, to make the case that war with Iraq is absolutely necessary. I have been, and frankly continue to, give them the benefit of the doubt. Surely they have intel that they feel they cannot share at this time for fear of giving away security methods and contacts which demonstrates the immediacy of the threat. Right? God, I hope so. But they've left me hanging, as a general supporter of Bush foreign policy, with the very generalist statements they are making and the accomodationist decision to allow the feckless Hans Blix and his merry team of idiots stroll around Baghdad and later make naive and ill-informed comments like "no smoking gun" to an eager-to-be-pacifist press.

Perhaps the Bush team is looking longer term, seeing Iraq as the first domino in a line of despotic and terrorist supporting regimes to fall. If so, they should make that case explicitly. I would support that policy, if it were actually articulated. I'm tired of having to make that argument to my lefty friends without the case being made by those in power.

As matters stand now, the only causus belli is the assertion that Iraq possesses WMD and is developing others to be either used by it or shared with shadowy terror front groups. But the only solid proof being adduced is something like a dozen warheads that could be, but were not, filled with chemical or biological agents. And we had to direct that moron Blix to find those. Why do we continue to rely on the demonstrated incompetence of Blix to make our case for war? When will Bush make the case, with solid evidence, to put a cork in the mouths of the fools who demonstrated over the last weekend?

That State of the Union speech better be a barn burner.

[waterstraat]

I supported bombing Japan in response to Pearl Harbor, I supported bombing Germany in response to Hitlers decaration of war on the United States, and I support bombing the Saudis in response to what they did to us on 9-11. What I dont see is how bombing Iraq will bring justice with the Saudis? No one I know of is protesting that we should get justice for 9-11 or for us to find a way to stop the Saudis from doing it again.

[waterstraat]

But Bush and his team are simply NOT doing enough, right now, to make the case that war with Iraq is absolutely necessary. I have been, and frankly continue to, give them the benefit of the doubt.

Most americans also gave Lyndon Johnson the "benefit of the doubt". Now that the Johnson white house tapes have been released, and are widely available in books such as "Reaching for Glory", and "TAking Charge", we see that Johnson lied to us, and giving him the benefit of the doubt was wrong.

If Bush has a case, then he should give it, present it to Congress, Congress should debate it, and if justified, Congress should declare war. Pretty simple really.

[waterstraat]

Perhaps the Bush team is looking longer term, seeing Iraq as the first domino in a line of despotic and terrorist supporting regimes to fall. If so, they should make that case explicitly. I would support that policy, if it were actually articulated. I'm tired of having to make that argument to my lefty friends without the case being made by those in power.

The American people should not have to "guess" what Bush knows and will not tell us. We did not have to "guess" what the intentions of Hitler and Japan were in 1941. If Iraq is truely a "domino" like Vietnam "wasnt", then Bush should present and explain HIS new "arab domino theory".

[NittanyLion]

First of all, excellent reply. You've summed up my thoughts on the subject as well.

I'm struggling with this as well. It's difficult to write coherently about my thoughts lately regarding the imminent war with Iraq. Mainly, because the very thought of being within spitting distance of the positions of such demonstrated slime as Martin Sheen, and assorted marxist nutjobs is almost too much to take in.

Exactly. My reflexive position is to take the opposite view of dolts like Sheen. Their argument - that this war is being conducted for oil - couldn't be more wrong. But if this Administration laid out their case, the "war for oil" claim would immediately be deflated.

Likewise, more reasonable folks need the case made as well. Is there a direct tie between Iraq and terror? Or will this be a demonstration to the rest of the world that defiance of international law is a losing proposition? I would likely support either position, if it were made. But "trust me on this" just isn't an appropriate response.

As you said, perhaps the case will be made in the State of the Union Address. But it will need to be made if the American public is to support this war. Every middle-of-the-road person with whom I've spoken has echoed that sentiment; and they're more representative of average Americans than I am (I'm a fire-breathing fringe conservative...).

[alloysteel]

Do not concern ourselves just yet with bringing justice to Saudi Arabia, G-d (or Allah) will one day punish them for their continued apostasy. But maybe let them take a little peak at the might of the Fist of Allah, and they might reform all on their own. Since Saddam is already materially in breach of the UN Resolutions (an entirely different thing than the 9-11 attack, by the way), exercising a little chastisement on their miscreant butts would go far to restoring respect for serious enforcement of standards in the rest of the world.

[Ga-Mo-Te]

I am just trying to make my mind about this whole issue of the war in Iraq. I've trying to gather some information around the net but I am still confused.

So it seems that what you say it's true and Americans should hit harder than they've been hitted before. On the other hand I have been found some webpages that claim that Americans hitted first, indeed (Gulf War, Nicaragua, Panama...) and this is just the first time that USA is been attacked in its own territory...

On the other hand, attacking to another would not be another episode in the war? The next time somebody could drop a bomb somewhere in California and say "It was because they attacked Iraq in the first place".

Another thing that I don't understand is the different informations I can find about Iraq. Everybody says that Saddam is SOB, and evil above all. Period. The disagreements come when people say that Saddam was allowed to stay in power thanks to America and Britain... It seems some of the weapons they use... are americans!! And then, of course more disagreement comes in what Iraqis can actually do. Do they have the power to attack USA? and more important which other countries have the power (i.e. Israel) to attack and should americans bomb those countries too?

What about taking out the governments which are not american-like? Some people say Iraq was american-like 15 years ago... what about China? or Pakistan? Shall America go also for this countries?

Sorry for disturbing. I am European and I don't understand very well the whole situation. Clarifications are wellcome.

Cheers

[KDD]

Iraq is a secular nation, not Islamic ruled.

You are right that the WTC terrorists were not Iraqi.

They were militant Islamics in a holy war against what they perceive to be a decadant West.

Korea poses much more of a threat to our national security and they've admitted to having WMD and are willing to use them to "destroy the world"...Yet we engage them in dialog. The double standard looks suspicious.

Meanwhile, our attention has been diverted from the very real threat of Islamic terroism. Why?

I am a lifelong Republican but this whole Iraq War is starting to smell like a load of manure that has sat in the sun for too long. Meanwhile we surrender more of our civil liberties to Big Brother Gov.

The Bush administration is a huge disapointment to this conservative.

[DugwayDuke]

There's been a few bits of information posted here on FreeRepublic about the links between the organizations sponsoring these "anti-war" protests. The bottom line is they are the ususal anti-american socialist organizations you'd expect.

Anyone who listened to much of their protests should have noticed that there was far more to their agenda than just a anit-war protest. Just like in the sixties, most of the "anti-war" protests received considerable backing from the communist party.

Even our old friend Justin Raimondo from anti-war.com wrote a rather interesting commentary about how the leftist/socialists were taking over the anti-war movement.

[DugwayDuke]

You guys have asked some good questions.

There are two necessary conditions for inclusion in the Axis Of Evil. The first is a past history of involvement with terrorist organizations in providing safe havens, money, and other forms of support. The second is an active program to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea all satisfy these conditions. No other state does.

The United States simply cannot allow a nuclear weapon to fall into the hands of a terrorist organization. If a nuclear weapon were to be detonated in the United States we would see deaths in the hundreds of thousands. This is simply unacceptable to the current administration.

Whether any of these countries were involved in 9/11 is irrelevent. US policy is very clear. The United States will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of terrorists.

There will be a change in regimes in Iraq and in North Korea. If Iran does not prevent conclusive proof that it has destroyed all elements of a nuclear weapons program, there will be a regime change there as well. These regime changes will take place with or without UN approval, with or without the assistance of other countries. If it takes US troops on the ground, then that there will be troops on the ground.

[HighWheeler]

"This article would be strengthened if Iraq could be more concretely connected to terrorism - but for me at least that connection has not been made."

That open ended doubt of yours makes you sound just like the anti-war protestors. So how much "concrete" do you need to justify saving our collective souls? I have an idea that there is no level of proof that would be good enough for you or the other anti-American protesters.

saddam has violated at least 16 U.N. resolutions, and materials for WMD have been found, he has gassed thousands of his own people, and killed members of his own family. That is enough for me to fully describe him as a mad man that must be taken out.

But maybe you are one of the people who aren't willing to take this needed action until saddam goes so far as showing you a video of him actually pulling the lever releasing the nuke that mushrooms over D.C. By then, he will be happy to let you lick his boots while you cower in fear of him.

[NittanyLion]

The Duke was the 197th person to register on this forum. He's voiced some very legitimate questions - why don't you try answering them instead of making personal attacks?

[Dan(9698)]

>>>. . .I invite all those who want a war with Iraq to explain. . .

There was a debate in Congress before they authorized war with Iraq.

Did you sleep through it?

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...If Bush has a case, then he should give it, present it to Congress, Congress should debate it, and if justified, Congress should declare war. Pretty simple really.

He did, --- They did.

Did you sleep through it?

[HighWheeler]

"The Duke was the 197th person to register on this forum. He's voiced some very legitimate questions - why don't you try answering them instead of making personal attacks?"

I read his post over again, and still could find even one question to read, much less a "legitimate" one.

As far as my response to his vacant questions, read paragraph #3 in my post, again.

I described why he is a madman for gassing his one people, violations of the UN resolutions, etc., so perhaps you or Duke can explain what level of "concrete proof" you personally would be happy with to remove saddam.

BTW, I just heard Hannity say that saddam gassed 1.5 million of his own people. I guess gassing 1.5 million people isn't enough for you or him, is it?

And being #197 anywhere doesn't automatically give anyone a pass. I am an equal opportunity challenger.

[A_perfect_lady]

I'll tell you what these "protestors" want. They want capitalism dead, the Constitution destroyed, and the United States of America under the thumb of the U.N. If it takes killing 200 million Americans to do it, they'll sacrifice 200 million. That's how Marxists are. You've got to break some eggs to make an omelette, and they consider themselves excellent chefs.

[The Duke]

I have an idea that there is no level of proof that would be good enough for you or the other anti-American protesters

Then your "idea" is dead wrong. And the thought processes (or lack thereof) of equating "anti-American" with "war questioning" are sub-Neanderthal.

One can sense that all those who are in favor of this war are really chomping at the bit to equate Saddam with 9/11, and yet can't. The result is that the war must be promoted based on circuitous logic that simply does not convice everybody - myself included.

And I'm sure you'd like to place me into some pre-defined pidgeonhole of anti-war (and somehow simultaneously anti-American) protestors who oppose all violence (after all, it's so much easier to think in terms of generalizations). Let me shortcut that whole process by voicing my support for the immediate commencement of war against North Korea.

You see, I am convinced that North Korea is a very real threat (words from their own mouths). But, as yet, the only reason I see to bomb Saddam is because he's "as bad as Fidel Castro".

[A_perfect_lady]

There was a debate in Congress before they authorized war with Iraq. Did you sleep through it?

Even that lefty Diane Feinstein voted for Bush. I have to wonder about people who just keep saying, "tell me why again?"

[CyberCowboy777]

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill