Here's a partial answer from Financial Times (those well known commie cocksuckers):

A distant world for which Bush cares little

President George W. Bush is presiding over the ruin of US foreign policy. A world united against the war in Iraq is only the start, since US diplomatic failure and neglect extend to virtually every area of foreign policy.

Another stunning example lies in the Andes, where the US administration has proved to be incapable of even the simplest responses to a profound crisis engulfing the region. Venezuela's chaos continues, while Colombia's violence deepens. Most recently, the US has looked on as Bolivia, a close ally and a desperately poor, and until recently stable, Andean nation, teeters on the brink of collapse. This is in large measure because of US policies but the administration has not shown the slightest recognition of the incipient disaster it is helping to create.

...

The evidence is clear: the White House and State Department are now so completely disorganised and preoccupied that they are unable to process even the most basic foreign policy measures needed to help stabilise an allied country threatened with collapse as a result of a US-inspired drug eradication effort. The message of US policy failure will not be lost on countries all over the world caught up in drug trafficking - including Afghanistan, where opium production and exports are soaring to record levels. Meanwhile, the Latin America section of the State Department is obsessed solely with making anti-Castro propaganda in order to win votes for Mr Bush among anti-Castro Cubans in Florida in the 2004 election.

The world keeps searching for deeper meanings in current US foreign policy, without realising that US foreign policymaking groans under the weight of extremism, cynicism, ignorance and the obsession over Iraq. Not only Bolivia but also much of the rest of the world is in peril as a result.

It doesn't seem to matter your pov. Whatever you held/hold/will hold is right.


riiigggghhhhtttt!

:(

1. Is there a connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11?

Maybe there is a direct connection, maybe not. We'll find out soon enough. But there is an indirect connection, in that Saddam's regime supported the kind of terrorism that we saw on 9-11-01. And he hated America.

2. Is that connection really bigger than that of all the countries we're not invading?

Iraq was a unique target. No-fly zones, UN sanctions, an across-the-board hated government. It was "low-hanging fruit". The Saudis, though perhaps more "responsible" for 9-11-01 than Saddam, are actually a somewhat friendly regime. That is, at least compared to the populace. Regime change in SA would be counter-productive.

3. Does Iraq really have or almost have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States?

If they have any WMD (which they almost certainly do), then they are a threat to the US and its allies. Look at their track record.

4. What will toppling Saddam ultimately cost in dollars and in lives (American, Iraqi, others)?

Less than a thousand US lives, certainly. Tens of thousands of Iraqi lives (military). A few thousand (at most) Iraqi lives (civilian).

5. Will the result be a stable Iraq and a blossoming of democracy in the Middle East or something less attractive?

Probably a stable Iraq with some democratic elements.

6. How many young Muslims and others will be turned against the United States, and what will they do about it?

They will die, if they actively pursue their delusions of grandeur. How many? Thousands. Mostly impotent, but thousands.

7. Should we be doing this despite the opposition of most of our traditional allies?

If you really think France, Germany, Red China, And Russia are "traditional allies", you're in rough shape, friend...

8. Without the approval of the United Nations?

The UN is a joke. It would be funny, except most of the rest of the world doesn't get the punchline...yet.

9. Is it justified to make "pre-emptive" war on nations that may threaten us in the future?

If a majority of US voters agree, yes.

10. When do internal human rights, or the lack of them, justify a war?

Whenever a majority of US voters think they do.

11. Is there a policy about pre-emption and human rights that we are prepared to apply consistently?

Nope. Case-by-case, baby.

12. Does consistency matter?

Nope. We allied with Stalin in WWII, and opposed him almost immediately after. The worst enemy of the US used to be England; now the Brits are our best mates. "Consistency" is for people who've lost the argument on its individual merits.

13. Before Bush begins trying to create a civil society in Iraq, wouldn't it be nice if he apologized to Bill Clinton and Al Gore for all the nasty, dismissive things he said about "nation-building" in the 2000 campaign?

Apologize? No. But he probably should publicly amend his ideology vis-a-vis foreign policy.

I think since the US administration likes simple, b&w policy, they should just take their doctrine from china shops: "You break it, you bought it".

excellent post as usual, brian.

thank you!
xoxo, jared

THE QUESTIONS

1. Is there a connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11?
2. Is that connection really bigger than that of all the countries we're not invading?
3. Does Iraq really have or almost have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States?

Don't really care. As far as I'm concerned, the war was wholly justified by the liberation of 25M Iraqis from the worst sort of brutal police state.

4. What will toppling Saddam ultimately cost in dollars and in lives (American, Iraqi, others)?

Dollars? Don't much care -- a relatively small fraction of a year's US budget. We can write it off as a world charitable contribution.

American lives? Fewer than 200, it appears -- how many die every year in military training exercizes? How many police die in while on duty? Iraqi lives? Many more, of course, but still a tiny fraction of those that Saddam's has killed.

5. Will the result be a stable Iraq and a blossoming of democracy in the Middle East or something less attractive?

Don't know, but at minimum, Iraq will be vastly better than it was. The rest of the Middle East? We can hope.

6. How many young Muslims and others will be turned against the United States, and what will they do about it?

Again, don't know, but I would argue that as many will be turned in favor of the US as against (how many young Germans, Italians, and Japanese were turned against the US by the outcome of WWII). The cheering of liberated Iraqis was a start to change some minds, but handling of the aftermath of the war will be critical.

7. Should we be doing this despite the opposition of most of our traditional allies?
8. Without the approval of the United Nations?

Yes. We did not have the approval of the UN in Kosovo when we intervened there (or Rwanda where didn't but should have).

9. Is it justified to make "pre-emptive" war on nations that may threaten us in the future?

As I said in my first answer, I don't think threatening us is the main issue. I think it is justified for soverignty not to be an absolute value that allows despotic governments to abuse their own citizens while those countries who have the ability to stop it stand around and watch (or get together in committees and draft impotent resolutions deploring what has happened).

10. When do internal human rights, or the lack of them, justify a war?

See #9. We'd need some kind of point system I suppose. Saddam's regime would have scored very high on any reasonable point system.

11. Is there a policy about pre-emption and human rights that we are prepared to apply consistently?

We can have a consistent philosophy, but we will have to adapt actions to cases. The people of North Korea suffer as badly as the Iraqis, but the North Koreans have artillery near the DMZ that can level Seoul inside an hour. And nukes, too, probably. So, sadly, the same policy cannot be applied.

12. Does consistency matter?

See #11.

13. Before Bush begins trying to create a civil society in Iraq, wouldn't it be nice if he apologized to Bill Clinton and Al Gore for all the nasty, dismissive things he said about "nation-building" in the 2000 campaign?

Yawn. I suppose so. But the Democratic candidates will get plenty of air time to make that very point during the campaign.

I really don't see the relevance of most of these questions to support for the war but, being a right-wing, homophobic, racist, capitalist pig, I'll do anything for a buck (or 13 billion bucks).


1. Is there a connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11?

Irrelevant. President Bush declared war on terrorism including, but not limited to, Al-Qaeda. He also included Iraq in the Axis of Evil. Don't understand relevance of this question to the decision to enforce terms of 1991 Gulf War cease-fire.

2. Is that connection really bigger than that of all the countries we're not invading?

Irrelevant. You do what can reasonably be done; the perfect is the enemy of the good. Using this logic, D-Day should have been launched in 1942 rather than 1944. Of course, this would have been suicidal. It's called "common sense", apparently something unheard of in certain elite circles.

3. Does Iraq really have or almost have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States?

Yup

4. What will toppling Saddam ultimately cost in dollars and in lives (American, Iraqi, others)?

Please conduct a Lexus-Nexus or Library of Congress search and provide Franklin Roosevelt's estimate of the cost of the European campaign. Please do same for Harry Truman's estimate of costs of containment as war strategy with the Soviet Bloc.

5. Will the result be a stable Iraq and a blossoming of democracy in the Middle East or something less attractive?

Don't know. I'm not Nostrodamus. Should the inability to 100% predict consequences of an action preclude the taking of that action? Pretty pathetic way to live...

6. How many young Muslims and others will be turned against the United States, and what will they do about it?

One might ask: How many will be discouraged from exercising their jihadist fantasies? A fair number. Of course, NOTHING will dissuade those truly in the grip of the jihadist fantasy ideology
from indulging their fantasies. Conversely, no American action will persuade them NOT to exercise said fantasy. The question is meaningless.

Oh, almost forgot: "What will they do about it?" Most likely, they will die.

7. Should we be doing this despite the opposition of most of our traditional allies?

Yup. We'll get new allies. Oh, about 50 of them. Oh, wait, most of them were already our allies. So what are you talking about? Ah, France, Belgium, Germany and Russia. Russia is not an ally but a partner of convencience; we have agreed to disagree on this matter. Germany: they have abdicated any responsibility by refusing to have any role in enforcing UN resolutions; why should an adult beg for the appoval of a child. France: actively tried to prevent enforcement of UN resolutions; not the actions of an ally. Belgium: France's chocolate poodle.

8. Without the approval of the United Nations?

Approval? Do you mean enforcing the plain language of Resolution 1441? I guess that means the coalition HAD UN Security Council approval. If you are speaking of the proposed 18th resolution, then you should substitute the word "France" for "UN" in your question. In that case, the answer is "no." But I think your question implies some moral authority to the UN Security Council that simply does not exist. But that is too long a subject to flog here...

9. Is it justified to make "pre-emptive" war on nations that may threaten us in the future?

Yup

10. When do internal human rights, or the lack of them, justify a war?

When the perpetrator of the human rights violations represents a threat to US economic and national security interests. Boy, these are easy questions...

11. Is there a policy about pre-emption and human rights that we are prepared to apply consistently?

Don't know. Should there be one? Of should we perhaps exercise some judgment and look at each potential threat on a case-by-case basis? It'd be a shame if we got all ideologically rigid about this stuff, wouldn't it (he said sarcastically.

12. Does consistency matter?

Major philosophical question but not sure what this has to do with supporting the war...

13. Before Bush begins trying to create a civil society in Iraq, wouldn't it be nice if he apologized to Bill Clinton and Al Gore for all the nasty, dismissive things he said about "nation-building" in the 2000 campaign?

Please supply context. Until you do, I would like to issue a standing demand for an apology for contextual rape.

You may make the check out to "Just Wasted 15 Minutes of My Precious Time" and send it to....

"8. Without the approval of the United Nations?

...If you are speaking of the proposed 18th resolution, then you should substitute the word "France" for "UN" in your question. In that case, the answer is "no."...."

Meant to say "yes." D-oh!!

1. Is there a connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11?

I don't know. There was a connection between Iraq and the first WTC bombing. Beyond that, while the adminstration has been looking for links, at no time did they say that they were going after Hussein because he was linked to the destruction of the WTC.

2. Is that connection really bigger than that of all the countries we're not invading?

I believe Iraq was a chosen 'first step', other nations that harbor terrorists will be addressed in their turn. It is hoped that many of them, realizing that we're not joking, give up their support for terrorist organizations and join us in pursuit of those who will not.

3. Does Iraq really have or almost have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States?

Iraq has weapons that are proscribed under the terms of the cease-fire they agreed to. This is the pertinent fact. Do they threaten the US directly? No. Indirectly, most definately. From supplying terrorists to attacking allies, they do pose a threat to our national security.

4. What will toppling Saddam ultimately cost in dollars and in lives (American, Iraqi, others)?

A numerical answer is impossible to give. However, the net gain in freedom, liberty and a sustainable peace is worth the cost. Is it worth it to everyone involved? Probably not--particularly right after a loved one is lost, but there are few now who are not proud of the sacrifices made by the allies in WW2.

5. Will the result be a stable Iraq and a blossoming of democracy in the Middle East or something less attractive?

If the US takes the tack of trying to help set up a US type state, yes. I support giving the people of Iraq our Constitution, telling them that following this will get them where we are, and then standing back and offering a nudge here and there. If we fall into the trap that allowed Germany to turn into a socialist mess then years from now, free, social-democrat Iraqis will curse us.

Either is better than what they had.

6. How many young Muslims and others will be turned against the United States, and what will they do about it?

None that were not against us before--and some will turn towards us that hated us before. Those who were motivated to strike at us before will hopefully think twice about doing so now. Particularly when they realize that each terrorist act results in the decimation of the terrorist group, its supporters and its cause.

7. Should we be doing this despite the opposition of most of our traditional allies?

'Traditional allies'? Russia, until recently, was an enemy--as is China. Germany is an 'ally' in the sense that we beat them into a pulp and forced them to renounce their enemity--and France remains an opportunistic government that leeches onto the closest structure that it thinks has power. To quote Albus Dumbledore, "It takes a brave person to stand up to their enemies, but it takes an even braver one to stand up to their friends." Sometimes your friends are just wrong.

8. Without the approval of the United Nations?

The UN passed resolutions pertaining to the behavior of Iraq, including a conditional cease-fire. The US, one of its' member-states, upheld those UN resolutions. If the current head of the UN does not choose to enforce the UN's own mandates, it is not a violation of UN policy for its' member-states to do so.

9. Is it justified to make "pre-emptive" war on nations that may threaten us in the future?

It depends on the nature of the threat. Currently we are not engaged in such. Saddam Hussein violated the cease-fire, thereby leading to a resumption of hostilities. While this conflict is occasionally referred to as Gulf War 2, it is actually a resumption of the first Gulf War.

10. When do internal human rights, or the lack of them, justify a war?

It is best not to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation that is not behaving in a belligerant fashion externally. That being said, who knows? The 'liberation of Iraq' is not an actual objective of this conflict--no matter what it's called. Iraqi liberation is a beneficial side-effect of forcing compliance with the cease-fire.

11. Is there a policy about pre-emption and human rights that we are prepared to apply consistently?

No.

12. Does consistency matter?

Had we a policy, consistency would matter.

13. Before Bush begins trying to create a civil society in Iraq, wouldn't it be nice if he apologized to Bill Clinton and Al Gore for all the nasty, dismissive things he said about "nation-building" in the 2000 campaign?

No. The hyperbole spread widely during political campaigns should be left to the campaign trail--not dragged to the fore to try to make political hay. politicians, like most people, are not prognosticators and any statements they make regarding the future are changeable based on the circumstances.

1. Is there a connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11?

uh...GWB...?

2. Is that connection really bigger than that of all the countries we're not invading?

Yes. Because of his father.

3. Does Iraq really have or almost have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States?

Only one :SH himself.

4. What will toppling Saddam ultimately cost in dollars and in lives (American, Iraqi, others)?

Too much.

5. Will the result be a stable Iraq and a blossoming of democracy in the Middle East or something less attractive?

You mean something like the sacre of Spring or Winter of our discontent ?
It depends..if you put a US-Brit soldier behind each Iraqi...

6. How many young Muslims and others will be turned against the United States, and what will they do about it?

99 is the number of the names of God.

7. Should we be doing this despite the opposition of most of our traditional allies?

oH MY God STOP ! I crack...yes..why did we wage this..stop...13 millions out of my sight..boohoo...GWB I know where you live..

Okay, time for the judging...

RESULTS

Not one entrant answered all 13 questions directly. There were some actual "yes" and "no" responses, but not many. Every entrant in at least one answer evaded the question being asked.

So...I keep my (fictional) 13 billion dollars. For now.

Still accepting entries.

You can re-enter if you'd like. Please keep in mind--a direct answer answers a question directly.

Thanks. And good luck!

1. Is there a connection between Iraq and the perpetrators of 9/11?

Yes. According to CNN, captured Iraqi documents descibe a meeting between Iraqi officials and Al-Qaeda in 1998 to "establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia."

2. Is that connection really bigger than that of all the countries we're not invading?

No. IIRC, Sudan also had an official relationship with Al-Qaeda. So did Afghanistan, but we did invade that country.

3. Does Iraq really have or almost have weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States?

Probably not.

They did have WMD that threatened our allies (Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Israel) in the region, but no good way of delivering them to the USA.

4. What will toppling Saddam ultimately cost in dollars and in lives (American, Iraqi, others)?

Dollars: according to CNN, $20 billion for the war itself, plus $2 billion a month for the occupation.

Lives:
182 American, British, and Austrailian soldiers
6800 Iraqi soldiers
3760 Iraqi civilians

Total: 10742 lives

Source: iraqometer.com

Supposedly, Saddam is responsible for the deaths of over 2 million Iraqi civilians during his reign, but that is neither here nor there.

5. Will the result be a stable Iraq and a blossoming of democracy in the Middle East or something less attractive?

I don't know.

I'll go out on a limb here and say that the Iraqis have a better chance for democracy now than they would have if we hadn't invaded.

6. How many young Muslims and others will be turned against the United States, and what will they do about it?

Very few and not much, by all appearances.

7. Should we be doing this despite the opposition of most of our traditional allies?

Yes. Popularity of an idea has little to do with its correctness.

BTW, I dispute the assumptions of this question. To my knowledge, the only countries that have consistantly been our allies since before WWII are Britain, Canada, Austrailia, and New Zealand. All but Canada actively support the war.

France was our ally until the 1960s, when they withdrew militarilly from NATO. Even if we count France as a traditional ally, the score is still 3-2 in favor.

8. Without the approval of the United Nations?

Yes.

9. Is it justified to make "pre-emptive" war on nations that may threaten us in the future?

Sometimes. There must be a strong proponderance of evidence that they would attack us or our allies if they had the capability.

The Baath party platform calls for the forceful unification of the Arab world and the destruction of Israel. We are allied with Israel and with several Arab countries.

10. When do internal human rights, or the lack of them, justify a war?

When the lack of human rights is so bad that it offends the civilized world.

Given French, German, Belgian, Russian, etc opposition to the war, I conceed that Iraq does not meet this test.

However, Saddam's human rights abuses are bad enough to contradict any claim his regime has to a moral right to rule Iraq. IMO, that gives us the right to invade if it is in our national interests (see below).

11. Is there a policy about pre-emption and human rights that we are prepared to apply consistently?

Yes. See my answers to 9 and 10.

12. Does consistency matter?

Yes.

It is better to be consistantly right than to not be consistantly right, but it is also better to be right some of the time than to be consistantly wrong.

13. Before Bush begins trying to create a civil society in Iraq, wouldn't it be nice if he apologized to Bill Clinton and Al Gore for all the nasty, dismissive things he said about "nation-building" in the 2000 campaign?

Yes. In the 2000 campaign, he should have limited his critisism of "nation-building" to a discussion Clinton's tendancy to not give our troops the authority to do more than piss everyone off. He should have said that we should either do the job right or leave well enough alone.


The reasons discussed above do not cover my main reason for supporting the war. We had three options for dealing with Iraq:

1. Disengagement. Pull our troops out of the region and lift sanctions. When Saddam rearms and invades Kuwait and the Gulf states, ignore him.

2. Containment. Keep doing what we've been doing for the past 12 years.

3. Invasion. What we actually did.

Containment probably would have continued to work, but at a much greater cost in dollars and lives (mostly Iraqi civilians). Saddam's human rights abuses were bad enough to destroy any claim he had to a right to rule Iraq, so we were free to invade if it was in our national interest.