Demolishing the Strawmen arguments against the war against Saddam

VANITY | 1/10/2004 | Swordmaker

[Swordmaker]

JUSTIFYING THE WAR IN IRAQ

Everywhere we hear Liberals, the anti-war crowd, and some even conservatives criticizing the Coalition forces' invasion and liberation of Iraq because "no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found," "there is no direct link with the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Towers and killed almost 3000 civilians," "there was no Uranium sought in Africa," or that "Saddam did not have close ties with our 'real' enemy, Al-Qaida."

These critics claim that we've lost our focus on the War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq is "distracting" us from hunting down and prosecuting Osama Bin Laden for his crimes. They claim Saddam's activities were merely a local problem impacting only citizens of Iraq, implying that our horror and outrage over genocide, mass murder, and rape are merely disagreements about how to govern a nation, and that such issues are not enough reason to have involved the US or justified Coalition forces taking miltary action. The implied criticism seems to be that Saddam Hussein was "not involved" as a henchman of the "real" terrorists we needed to fear so we should be concentrating on finding Osama Ben Laden.

They claim the President 'lied' about many things to 'justify' 'his war.' They are especially incensed about the 'lie' he told the people that "the threat against the United States is immanent," ignoring the slightly akward fact that the President never said any such thing. These critics of everything about the war finally crow "It is an unjustified war!"

Gasping at the lack of understanding, reasoning and vision exhibited by these critics, we defenders of the Coalition's actions in Iraq scramble to counter the critics talking points.

We claim confidently that the WMDs will be found, that Saddam had WMDs in the past and used WMDs against the Iraqi Kurds and Iran. We wave the many UN resolutions and claim international authorization for the war. We claim with certainty that direct links to Saddam's integral involvement in the events of 9/11 and a close relationship with Al-Qaida will eventually be discovered in the millions of pages of Iraqi bureaucratic paperwork captured during the war. We show the criers of "liar, liar" the transcripts, video, and recordings of what was truthfully said, expecting that they will hear what was really said and realize their error. We say "We'll show you the connection to Al-Qaida and that will justify the war."

ALL EFFORTS TO RESPOND TO THE CRITICS IS WASTED EFFORT!

No matter how well the criticisms are countered, no matter how truthful the evidence, no matter how overwhelming the facts, the opponents will merely shift their focus and redirect their opposition on some other niggling detail that will send defenders scrambling to produce another counter-point or more evidence they are wrong. The fact is that they don't care about evidence, or facts, or truth.

We expend countless hours of effort in attempting to awaken these misguided opponents. We may as well be talking to a scarecrow... because we are.

The opponents' criticisms are STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS raised to obfuscate the real purpose of the ongoing Iraqi Liberation and the bigger conflict it is part of. We should stop wasting time on meeting the opponents on their chosen fields of battle. By doing so, we merely validate their opposition.

We have all the justification for the Liberation of Iraq we need without resorting to any point-by-point rebuttal of their arguments. All of those issues raised by the opponents are being brought up to distract us from the real war. They are completely irrelevant.

They do not want us to remember we did not go to war against just Al-Qaida. We aren't just hunting a 'criminal' named Osama Bin Laden. We have a greater purpose.

We went to war against TERRORISM.

We went to war against TERRORIST GROUPS.

We went to war against the individual TERRORIST.

We went to war against TERRORISM in all its forms.

We went to war against nations who harbored, sponsored and/or supported TERRORISM.

We, through our President, declared that if a nation harbored, sponsored and/or supported TERRORISM, then we were at war with that nation.

". . . Our war on terror begins with al Qaida, but it does not end there. . . . we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. . . President George W. Bush, Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001

WAS IRAQ A TERRORIST STATE?

The only question required to justify the liberation of Iraq from Saddam and his Baathist Party is:

"Did Iraq under Saddam support, sponsor and/or harbor TERRORISM?"

DID IRAQ SUPPORT TERRORISM?

Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers -- a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers' families. In Tulkarm, one of the poorest towns on the West Bank, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council handed out the checks from Saddam. The payments have been made for at least two years, but the amount has suddenly jumped up by $15,000 -- a bonus for the families of 'martyrs', to reward those taking part in the escalating war against Israel. . . . Fox News, March 26, 2002

Was Iraq a supporter of terrorism? YES! Absolutely!

DID IRAQ SPONSOR TERRORISTS?

If Iraq trained terrorists it is logical to infer that combined with supporting terrorists they sponsored their TERRORISM.

. . . This general served Saddam Hussein for decades. Along with another Iraqi defector, Sabah Khodada (see below), the general tells of terrorists training in a Boeing 707 resting next to railroad tracks on the edge of Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. The existence of the plane has been confirmed by U.N. inspectors. The general describes the men who trained there, the camp's security, and his "gut feeling" that the camp was in some way tied to the Sept. 11 attacks. Iraqi Lt. General, PBS and New York Times Interview, November 6, 2001

A captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992, he worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. In this translated interview Khodada describes what went on at Salman Pak, including details on training hijackers. He emigrated to the U.S. in May 2001. Sabah Kodada, Iraqi Army Captain, PBS and New York Times Interview, October 14, 2001

An investigation by Frontline confirmed that Iraqi intelligence had trained at least forty Islamic terrorists between 1995 and 2000 in how to hijacking airliners using a Boeing-747 that was originally Kuwaiti property. Frontline, PBS, November 14, 2001

Did Iraq sponsor terrorists? YES! Absolutely

DID IRAQ HARBOR TERRORISTS?

. . . Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens. . . . Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq, October 15, 2002

A delegation of senior officers of the Israeli Defense Forces is briefing the CIA on a Palestinian terror cell discovered in Israel that had trained at military camps in Iraq, a leading Israeli newspaper reported. A three-member cell from the Arab Liberation Front, a radical group that allegedly planned to carry out an attack on Ben-Gurion International Airport last November, was arrested after trying to return to the West Bank from Iraq, Ha'aretz, a liberal Israeli daily newspaper, reported Monday. Lawrence Morahan, CNS News, September 24, 2002

Shortly before the Sept. 11 attacks, a group of al-Qaida fighters left Afghanistan and set up shop in Iraq as a backup base, according to a report in today‘s Los Angeles Times. Osama bin Laden‘s jihadists established such a base in town of Al Biyara and nearby mountain villages where Kurdish militants had begun imposing the strict Islamic rule much like Afghanistan‘s ousted Taliban regime, according to the Times report. While this base is further evidence of Saddam Hussein‘s recent support of al-Qaida, documented by many intelligence sources over the last 10 years, Iraq is attempting to maintain plausible deniability with regard to the bases – suggesting they are outside the control of the government in Baghdad. Intelmessages.com and Los Angeles Times, December 9, 2002

The British also released a dossier on Iraq which claimed that at least two key Al-Qaeda lieutenants underwent training inIraq. The dossier also confirmed that Iraq was paying Al-Qaeda to use its Ansar forces based in northern Iraq to attack the Kurdish forces. Reuters, September 14, 2002

Did Iraq harbor terrorists? YES! Absolutely!

WHAT ABOUT THE STRAWMEN SCARECROWS OF THE LEFT?

Did we need the excuse of looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify this war? Did we need to show Saddam bought any "Yellow Cake" Uranium from Niger? Did we need to prove a causal link with Saddam and the attack on the World Trade Towers to justify this war? Did we need an "immanent threat" against the United States of America to justify this war?

NO! Absolutely Not!

Is our war against Saddam Hussein and the thugs who controlled Iraq justified?

YES! Absolutely!

Saddam's Iraq met and exceeded the criteria for being a terrorist state. Iraq was a TERRORIST STATE! Under the criteria set out by the President of the United States, the liberation of Iraq is entirely justified as part of the War on Terror.

Libya, Syria, and Sudan other terrorists states also meet and exceed that criteria... and are beginning to wake up to the fact that George W. Bush was serious when he said ". . . we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. . . "

[Swordmaker]

One of the most interesting things I found while researching this article on Google is how difficult it is to find main stream media sources for these citations or evidence of Iraqi involvment in terrorism. They exist, but they are far out numbered by sources like WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, Fox News and the Washington Times.

There are many blogs that itemize this data but in the interests of "gravitas" I tried to limit the sources to "main stream media." It was not easy.

Most of the main stream media articles are of the Saddam wasn't involved, Saddam wouldn't associate with Ben Laden, no WMDs have been found, variety.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
29	Arkansas	335.00	13	25.77	120	2.79	55.00	5

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Alberta's Child]

The most concise arguments against war in Iraq are not "straw men" at all. If all of the issues you mentioned here in this post truly justify the war, then why did this administration insist on using "weapons of mass destruction" as the pretext for war -- and not mention any of these things?

I have no problem with the U.S. waging war in Iraq to combat terrorism, but the war we are fighting there will do nothing to accomplish that end. If the United States really wanted to combat terrorism, it would have engaged in urban warfare in sections of London, Hamburg, New York City, Jersey City, etc. In fact, if you were to stand at Ground Zero today, I could take you to at least two radical Islamic mosques within five miles of that point that were havens for the 1993 WTC bombers and some of the 9/11 terrorists -- and which still exist there today.

[chance33_98]

The Democrats' Case Against Saddam Hussein (Dems nailed, yet again)

Headline Rundown and links on Iraq - Things the democrats have conviently forgot...

Saddam Abused His Last Chance, Clinton -clear and present danger to safety of people everywhere 1998

Gore repeats that Saddam MUST GO - June 2000

What the democrats want you to forget

Iraq is a Regional Threat, capable of as much as 200 tons of VX nerve agent (1999 Clinton report)

Czech military reports say iraq has smallpox virus in weapons stockpile (and camelpox)

2/7/1998 : Arab media: Clinton will strike due to sex scandal (&links to tons of arab news on clinton)

Iraqi chemical weapons buildup reported (Sept 2001 Report)

Clinton, Gore rally domestic support for strike at Iraq, "unholy axis" (1998 Must read)

statement President Clinton from 1998 on the air strikes

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Full Text, Sense of Congress - Remove Saddam

[marron]

Good piece.

In most cases, the pro-war and anti-war people are talking right past each other. I guess Paul O'Neill is going to announce in an interview aired tomorrow that the Bush Administration was planning war with Iraq right from the first days of his administration.

This seems to shock anti-war people but for me its comforting that Bush came into office, mind already made up that he was not going to pussyfoot with Saddam. 10 years was enough, time to bring it to an end.

The WMD argument is definitely a wasted argument, because for the pro-war people, its a non-issue, we were for the war for other reasons. And the anti-war people were against it even if there were WMD; you will remember that one of their arguments before the war started was that our guys would be killed in droves by WMD, and that the chemical and biological agents would poison Iraqis. And it would be our fault.

The whole argument about whether or not Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake is a wasted argument because the "antis" ignore the fact that he already had several hundred tons of the stuff. They have been pounding away at us for the radiation poisoning of Iraqi civilians who looted the uranium storage facility.

Of course the Joe Wilson column where he denies Bush's charge concerning yellow-cake was itself a rather sophomoric lie, perhaps a clintonian lie, in that while Bush said Iraq "sought" uranium, which is public information, Wilson asserts that Iraq did not "purchase" any uranium in Africa. And even that remains an open subject since Wilson's other lie is to claim he investigated it, when he most assuredly did not by his own words.

The "antis" persistently deny that we invaded Iraq because of the mass graves, but the fact is that those graves are at the heart of the problem. No one cares that India has nuclear weapons, because India has no mass graves. No one would have cared that Saddam invaded Kuwait, if it was just a matter of one Arab replacing another. He had, after all, invited the US to invest in his oil industry and Bechtel was gearing up for a megaproject right on the eve of war. By supporting Saddam we could have had Kuwait and Iraq's oil both.

But while Kuwaiti emirs aren't democrats, they are also not homicidal maniacs. Big difference. So we ejected Saddam from Kuwait.

And while Bush Senior was anxious to declare victory and go home, the very publicized slaughter of Kurds and Shias forced him to institute the no-fly patrols, which is how we got to where we are today. The mass graves are right at the heart of how we came to be sitting in Baghdad. It wasn't oil, our no-fly zones left the oil in Saddam's hands right up until the very end. If it was oil, we would have occupied the no-fly zones a decade ago, and a hundred thousand Iraqis would still be alive today.

[marron]

see post #5, just my long-winded take on the subject...

[meenie]

One thing everybody should be able to agree to, is the fact there are terrorists in Iraq now.

[Auntie Mame]

Excellent!

In fact, it's so good, I'm bookmarking this.

[Swordmaker]

. . . why did this administration insist on using "weapons of mass destruction" as the pretext for war -- and not mention any of these things?

They DID mention these reasons... along with a host of other reasons why Saddam had to be removed from power. WMDs were just one part of a multiplex compendium of reasons we were compelled to go to war.

It is my considered opinion that Saddam did have Weapons of Mass Destruction. They are either buried or have been transported to Syria. In fact, I believe we have already found the evidence. The mobile biological laboratories that some have "discounted" as mere hydrogen generators for weather baloons are the vehicles we KNOW were built by the Germans for Saddam. They were far too sophisticated for "hydrogen generators," could not have produced usable quantities of hydrogen for the "weather balloons" in any reasonable time to make them useful for that purpose, and had been scrubbed and sanitized with a strong chlorine solution, something that would be unlikely for a mere petroleum cracker. Tank trucks for transporting hydrogen are too simple a technology?

but the war we are fighting there will do nothing to accomplish that end.

Then you think the $25,000 reward payments made by Saddam to the Palestinian homnicide bombers' families are still being paid? Salmon Pak is still training terrorists in hijacking techniques. And you must believe Qadaffi's decision to scrap his nuclear weapons projects has not happened.

. . . engaged in urban warfare in sections of London, Hamburg, New York City, Jersey City, etc. In fact, if you were to stand at Ground Zero today, I could take you to at least two radical Islamic mosques . . .

So you think the government should go into those mosques with machine guns blazing and wage "urban warfare" to combat terrorism??? Exactly who would you have them shoot?

[Swordmaker]

Thanks.

[Swordmaker]

Everything you say is completely true... but unfortunately it will not have an iota of effect on the anti-war, liberal, and anti-bush crowds. Nor will it stop them from using the same lies that have time and time again been proven to be lies.

Too bad.

I just got tired of fighting the WRONG fight with these people. I am tired of meeting them on their field of battle, rebutting their lies, time and time again. EVeryone of these arguments has been proven to be wrong... but that does not stop them. You lop off one head of the hydra and two more pop up. From now on, when faced with these strawman arguments, we should not rebut their argument... make them come to us and try to rebut our war on terrorism rationale!

[MEG33]

Excellent.I don't believe we have proof that Saddam was directly involved in the planning and execution of 911,that has not been claimed or verified by the administration ,but there is a lot of evidence of cooperation and training.

I believe the administration is being very careful about its claims about AlQueda and Iraq.Saddam harbored terrorists and financed terrorism,even the administration acknowledges that.

As far as WMD goes,Saddam fooled the entire world's intelligence apparatus if he did not have them.

[swilhelm73]

The most concise arguments against war in Iraq are not "straw men" at all. If all of the issues you mentioned here in this post truly justify the war, then why did this administration insist on using "weapons of mass destruction" as the pretext for war -- and not mention any of these things?

The casus belli for the war, as stated unnumberable times by the administration, was that Hussein was in violation of the agreements that ended Gulf War 1.

That he was in said violation is obvious.

Further that such is more then grounds for war is also obvious.

The Clinton administration had of course allowed this state to develop by its incompetent foreign policy. The attempted assassination of Bush 41, for example, should have brought an immediate invasion to finish off Hussein.

In making their case, the Bush Administration claimed that we couldn't allow Hussein to continue to violate the terms that ended the war for yet another decade because of his support for terrorism and his WMD programs. The Administration further pointed out the horrors Hussein had unleashed on his own people, and the problems Clinton's failed containment strategy were causing.

This seems, not really surprisingly, to confuse those who opposed the war. How anyone on FR can toe the Stalinist line of ANSWER and their Islamist allies eludes me, however.

[pcx99]

The most concise arguments against war in Iraq are not "straw men" at all. If all of the issues you mentioned here in this post truly justify the war, then why did this administration insist on using "weapons of mass destruction" as the pretext for war -- and not mention any of these things?

WMD was A pretext for war, not THE pretext for war. There is a considerable difference. In the UN WMD was a major pretext, in the US President Bush's speaches were couched in terms of the war on terror.

Additionally as a general may not discuss strategy in public , President Bush was constrained by an inability to discuss the regional position of Iraq (bordering Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria) in the war on terror, nor the strategic value of its oil (without sanctions and an upgraded infrastructure Iraq's oil can make up for any disruptions in the flow of oil from Saudi Arabia and/or Iran).

Anyone with a map and a brain-cell can figure out the advantages of the Iraq in the overall war on terror, but it's not something you can talk about publically without offending those with fragile sensibilities like brutal repressive dictators and france :-P

[Go Gordon]

the war in Iraq is "distracting" us from hunting down and prosecuting Osama Bin Laden

Just ask the RATs/Libs: How many military personnel do we currently have looking for Osama? When they answer "I don't know", ask them how many do they suggest we have. 1000, 10,000 100,000? Then ask them how to deploy them and where. They will see their aburdity to think we could possibly put the 100,000+ troops that we have in Iraq in every turd world country over there. Do they think Iran is going to let the 3rd ID roam around Tehran? How about Syria, think they let the 101st Airborn do thei magic in Damascus? The RATs are stupid.

[MEG33]

Are you forgetting the big push in the UN by our "allies" to remove the sanctions on Iraq? Remember all the death of the children caused by the sanctions that were being reported along with depleted uranium causing cancer..recall the storage of children's bodies in cold storage that was discovered after the war so mass funerals could show how the sanctions were hurting the children?Remove the sanctions and Saddam was back in business.

[iopscusa]

Well put...the Bush Administration has done a remarkable job on the WoT. The only strategy that made sense to me was to put troops on the ground in the ME. Iraq was far and away the best place to seriously start fighting this war. This was obviously the correct strategy. Most half-bright people know it and the amoral Left & Peace forces know it too! So why did all these people oppose the battle for Iraq?
I wonder???

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Good post. It's important not to waste time arguing with each new dishonest campaign, and stick with basic facts...which are unchanging. In the end, Saddam's defenders are defending the indefensible, and endangering the world.

 

Just cause.

If you want on or off my, Calpernia, and xzin's Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail one of us. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).

[W5X]

I agree that the terrorists that plague our nation are vast and hide in the very city limits of the US and European cities they attack. We need to plan with our true allies better means of detection and suppression of these terrorist cells.

As for Iraq... I'm in Iraq now. I have yet to see any WMD, but I have noticed a trend. The enemy we fought at the begining of this war as we pushed through all of Iraq was docile. Now, they are better equipped, trained and funded. I see daily the evidence of a foreign source supporting anyone willing to act against Americans. Did our invasion of Iraq draw in terrorists from other countries? Yes it did. I as many others in uniform here see the daily violence, RPG attacks, IEDs on the roadside killing US soldiers, and the nightly mortar attacks that rain explosive steel on us in our camps. However, I'm thankful on this one morbid delight; it is drawing the funds, violence and personnel of terrorists world wide to mess up another country's back yard. Do I want to die here? No, not at all, but I would rather the violence be if not contained, but focused here where US military combatants are targets, not our civilian citizens in our own country. I am willing to stay here as long as it takes to deplete (probably unrealistic) the funds, personnel and equipment of AL Qaeda or any other organization.

There will be future attempts on our nations soil to show the American people they are serious and a force to be feared, but I see a ton of detainees every day who are dropping dimes on their contacts and handlers. The information chase and violence has to start somewhere. Might as well be Iraq.

Saddam was not loved by many Arabs in this world. Al Qaeda and other militant sects really didn't care for his style. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim and not a very good one. He ran a Dictatorship, not a Muslim government nor Muslim extreme government. Saddam was not motivated by the plight of the Islamic people and all Arabs new that. Saddam was small-time at best, but his nation is one of the largest in land mass in the Middle East and its vast borders and guards were corrupt. A few dollars and Al Qaeda or any person trafficking arms and explosives could cross the borders into Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran.

Iraq may not be the "Mother of all Evil"; as several make it out to be, but it holds a geographical strategic importance in the free movement of terrorism. It needed to be secured.

So did the president falsely claim Iraq had WMD to take Iraq? That is possible, but if he didn't possess the foresight to see the world would hold him accountable, then his administration would have. The U.S. government now has scientists who defected to the U.S. in the 1990s' who were feeding the info to the U.S. about their WMD and ballistic missile programs. I'm pretty sure the CIA and NSA would have done their best to verify the information. Saddam was caught red handed in the late 1980s' using chemical weapons on Kurds in the north and minor chemical agents (none are really minor) against Iranian forces during the Iran/ Iraq war. So with a past history of chemical weapon use AND the evidence of the biological samples of botulism, anthrax, and blood agents sold by our own pharmaceutical companies in 1988 I would say the United States has a reasonable suspicion of the Saddam Regime.

Syria and Jordan both allow free movement of the female members of the Saddam Al Tikriti family clan. Jordan is now housing the daughters of Saddam Hussein under diplomatic asylum. Ask any Iraqi male here (all mandated to serve 3 years in the former Iraqi Army)how easy it is to move in and out of Jordan and Syria. They will tell you that is were Saddam, Uday, Qusay and most of the scientific data/samples ran off to by the time the U.S. forces had crossed the berm into Iraq and headed for Al Nasirriah.

I say whatever the reason, we are here now and the fight is on. From my own personal experience I will tell you if there were no terrorists in Iraq before there are thousands (roughly 9,000 plus foreign fighter by our U.S. military guess)here now. I would rather engage one on the field of battle in the streets of Tikrit, Badhdad, Al Fallujah or Ba'Qubah that get sucker-punched in places like New York, Chicago or Dallas.

It may be seen as false bravado, but I love this anonymous quote: "American men and women sleep safely at night because others are willing to do violence to protect them."
Let the true war on terror begin and let us be the victor. If you think about it, the U.S. military has not had such an noble cause to commit to battle since the Second World War. We lost a million stopping the Reign of Adolf Hitler. Since then, it was the spread of Communism and skirmish at best with Iraq in 1990. Now, we play for keeps, regardless of the WMD, if not hunt the "terrorists" down who plague our nation, draw them in to a chosen location and commit to total victory. Just my opinion.