What is the best right-wing argument for the war in Iraq ?

[kentuck]

Hey, we were attacked on 9/11. It was the most deadly attack on America since Pearl Harbor. Only this time, they attacked our civilians - not the military. There had to be a response equal to the attack upon us and Iraq was the opportunity to teach the Arabs that if they are thinking of attacking our country ever again, they will pay a high price. Saddam and loss of Iraq was the price the Arabs paid for their foolishness in permitting their citizens to plot against our nation. It doesn't matter if they had WMDs or not. Someone had to pay. Afghanistan had no more targets to hit. Osama and the Taliban were not enough retribution for what they did to our country. That is why we overthrew the dictator in Iraq and why we have put the entire Middle East on alert not to do anything foolish again...

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. As usual, a faulty argument

one that is based on the claim that "all Arabs are alike". Iraq had nothing to do with 911. What strikes me is the fact we still toady up to Saudi Arabia, where the majority of hijackers came from, and where fanatical Wahhabism is very strong.

[Uncle Joe]

2. This seems to me to be the equivalent of

attacking China after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, after all they are all Asians.

[Canuckistanian]

3. Apt Dr. Zhivago dialog

Zhivago: It seems you bombed the wrong village.
Strelnikov: They always say that. And what does it matter? A village betrays us, a village is burned. The point made.
Zhivago: Your point. Their village.

[kentuck]

5. The key word is "they"

It doesn't matter who attacked us. If they were Arabs, all Arabs were responsible. Since Saddam was already a pain in the ass and since Iraq had all the important historic sites plus the purest oil reserves in the world, we will take that and call it even...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. Cranial rectosis on the part of the nonocons.

[leftofthedial]

6. and the Ay-rabs will take their revenge on us

by bombing Liechtenstein

that will show us!

[kentuck]

7. That's why they call it a World War...

Everybody is a friend or an enemy. Either you are with us or you are against us...

[leftofthedial]

8. and we're all dead or alive

:thumbsup: as usual, kentuck.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. The sanctions were not an appropriate response to Saddam Hussein

That's the best RW argument, though they never make it. The right-wingers, if they wanted to be taken seriously about human rights, would say this:

The strategy of containment had failed. The West could not take the sanctions off Saddam, since his history of weapons programs prevented unchecked trade, but the sanctions themselves were a monstrous crime, in that they killed over a million Iraqis, many of them children. We thus had a deadlock, and no good options. So, we either ceded to Saddam Hussein a certain degree of power, or we chalk up the sanctions as a failed and destructive means of regime change, and proceed with other means. (Ed. Note: Needless to say, they cannot say that, since the sanctions were never meant as a means to regime change by any body in charge of those sanctions, and could not legally have been construed in that manner). To leave Saddam in power without the ability to monitor his activities was impossible: damaging to his own people and dangerous to the region. To keep the sanctions in place was immoral. And while the war is awful, it amounts to only 1/10th the number of deaths of the sanctions, and has put us in a position to let democracy flourish in Iraq.

</conservative nonsense>

This is the only argument that makes sense, and it makes sense because it attacks the Democrats at their weakest moral point: the support for the outrageous sanctions regime that killed a million people, mostly during the Clinton Administration's watch. Since no Democrat with any power ever suggested getting rid of the sanctions, the counter-position is morally bankrupt. Of course, such an argument would have been strengthened had the administration set up adequate post-invasion planning, and moved quickly to transfer authority to a UN peacekeeping force rather than to a bunch of exile puppets. Given what they did do, this otherwise strong argument is moot.

[kentuck]

10. We had to do what we had to do and pretend to follow international law

That is why the lies about WMDs and nuclear threats were OK with most Americans...we were just putting on the face of legitimacy. We knew that it was necessary to hit a "valuable" target in the Arab world. Next to Saudi Arabia, Iraq was the best target. Only because we did not want to hit any of their most religious sites, such as Mecca...

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. The point is that

the sanctions regime was an outrage. Your argument smacks of cynicism. The sanctions argument would make sense to even uncynical people.

[kentuck]

13. But sanctions were not unsuccessful...

They had Saddam contained quite well. But, they could argue that the invasion of Iraq was only a continuation of the war that Clinton had carried on for 8 years. When 9/11 happened, it gave us more reason to take the war against Saddam more seriously...

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Sanctions murdered 1 million people

They were completely untenable long-term (even for the ten years they were in place). Sure, we can argue whether it was the sanctions regime itself or Saddam's manipulation of the sanctions regime that caused this horrendous result - in the end it was probably a bit of both, and it doesn't matter: the simple fact was that the sanctions regime destroyed 100,000 lives a year for their duration, and were therefore morally untenable, and did more actual harm than any weapon Saddam ever possessed. The sanctions regime was a weapon of mass destruction unleashed on the people of Iraq; they were just slower, and less flashy. And it is a sad truth that this awful war, however destructive, has probably killed as many people as the sanctions would have killed during the same period. In fact, I think that's hardly debatable, given the history of the sanctions' toll. If Bush would have come out in March of 2003 and said we're going to war to remove Saddam and end the sanctions, I - for one - would have been harder pressed to argue against that. Of course, that would have been illegal, strictly speaking, but I still would have seen some sense in it.

The WMD thing was a joke to anyone who's looked at Iraq for any length of time (I started studying the issue in 1996), and I can'rt believe that they can even pretend to have believed it at Langley or anywhere else. Nobody even believed it in 1998 when Clinton was bombing Iraq because Saddam kicked the inspectors out. Post-1996, the inspections and the sanctions were a farce and a containment strategy: Saddam was effectively disarmed at that time, and anyone that looked at the UNSCOM stuff knew it. That was the problem. The WMD lie was the only thing that could justify continued sanctions, especially in the face of international outcry over the horrors reeked by the sanction (I remember seeing a Medecins sans Frontiers guy openly crying after a trip to Baghdad - and this guy had seen people hacked in half in Congo! The Clinton Administration HAD to perpetuate the WMD lie in order to keep the sanctions in place, which only worked to keep Saddam contained. Of course, the goal of the sanctions was never to keep saddam contained, but to assure the effective inspection of his arsenal, a job that should have taken far less initial time, and that should have been maintained with a far better devised import prohibition (rather than broad sanctions) program. A fatal error that has led us to where we are today. Because the Clinton administration went along with the sanctions/WMD lie, the cynical Bush regime could pretend that it was a well-known truth. Why did all this happen. Needless to say, I put 99% of it on the Bush administration and their resident hawk crazies with PNAC. But I put 1% on the Clinton Administration and the world community that failed to imagine a better scenario than the sanctions, and therefore failed to accept the disarming of Saddam as substantially complete. It was a massive failure of the imagination, and a failure that history will judge them for, if there is any justice.

[kentuck]

23. So you're saying Clinton murdered more Iraqis than did Bush....?

or Saddam ??

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. I'm saying the sanctions killed more Iraqis than Bush or Saddam

And that's pretty well established. Even the Lancet's 100,000 Iraqis dead as a result of the war is a relatively small fraction of those killed as a result of the sanctions, and you won't find anyone who's looked into the matter who will say otherwise. Conservative estimates of the deaths caused by the sanctions regime come in at 400,000-500,000. I defy you to find a lower number.

I'm not "blaming" Clinton of murdering anybody. I'm arguing that the Clinton Administration and the world community had poor imagination and management on the question of the sanctions. I have no doubt that this will be borne out by history. Listen, I don't idolize "leaders." Never had and never will. I particularly didn't idolize Clinton, and the Iraq problem was one of my major reasons for disliking his management. Just because i think Bush is a despot and his Iraq war a monstrous debacle and lie doesn't mean that I liked Clinton's approach. I protested Clinton on numerous occasions on this very question. I've been for justice for the Iraqi people for quite some time, and the sanctions were a major assault on the dignity and life of the Iraqi people. I don't know how anyone who knows anything about it could argue otherwise. Even Madeline Albright was reduced to dogmatic incoherewnce when asked to justify the outrageous sanctions regime.

[kentuck]

26. I can't argue with that...but...

Many liberals, including here on DU, have said many times in arguing against the war, that we had Saddam "contained" and there was no use to invade his country, because he was no threat to us...We all knew it was happening...Children were starving to death. Not enough medicines. Unpure drinking water...and bombs..

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. The Saddam problem should have been dealt with in 1996

1997 at the latest. It would have avoided much death, much misery, and this fucking war, truth be told.

There should have been some sort of convention on what to do, and an agreement by the several parties. Unfortunately, Saddam in power remained an attractive strategy for the West, and so we have spiralled into this utter depravity and horror. It is a monumental failure of leadership by any number of leaders around the world that the question of Iraqi weapons wasn't decided long ago. It was the poltical greed with which leaders and their policy-makers viewed the spectacle of an impotent Saddam that opened the door for a lunatic like Bush to push his despicable war through. Saddam was contained in 1993, in 1994, in 1995, in 1996. And that which contained him was stacking up dead bodies faster than Saddam ever did. The world should have come together then to develop a solution. Instead, cynicism ruled and allowed leaders to lie about weapons so that they could keep their precious sanctions and pretend to reasonaqble foreign policy. It was the easier road than a principled discussion of policy, and it has led to unmitigated disaster.

[kentuck]

29. I cannot argue with that...

either. But we should note that the Repubs took over Congress and the Senate in 1994 and they will not be remembered for their competence.

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. No argument here

We should avoid binaries whereby critiquing Clinton is automatically assumed to be the same as praising Republicans. I despise the republican policies and politics of the 1990's as well as this decade.

[JHBowden]

11. That's probably the best one left.

If there is another attack, Syria and Iran are in the crosshairs. In theory, one would hope this gives these governments a strong incentive to crackdown on terrorism within their borders with thousands of Americans nearby.

[Senior citizen]

14. The ONLY right-wing argument for the war in Iraq is:

You want those defense contracts for your district? You want to keep that job we got you after you joined our evangelical church? Then just keep your damned mouths shut and go along to get along.

It is an argument that works. Congresscritters cave in every time. People who are working as civilians on military bases run by evangelicals, or for right wing defense contractors, cave in also--because they know they have some of the best-paying jobs around.

People who speak up get fired and blacklisted. Congresscritters who speak up find their districts losing defense jobs. No matter that the right has bankrupted this country and is driving it even further into debt--anyone who has a defense job knows enough to keep their mouth shut. This is strictly a, "You've got yours and nobody else has anything, so stop asking questions," argument, and it still works.

Congresscritters, defense contractors, their employees, and the military who was sent to Iraq to find them, know there were no WMDs, that we were attacked by Saudi terrorists, not Iraqis or Afghans, and that Osama Ben Laden comes from a family with close ties to BFEE and used to be (and possibly still is) a CIA asset. But they've got high-maintenance lifestyles, mortgages, and FAUX news to keep them in line. And most of them have friends or family in New York, so they also know that the most likely culprit behind 9/11 was BFEE. They, like BFEE, see it as an "opportunity." And they're cashing in on it.

[rasputin1952]

15. There was never a legitimate reason to invade Iraq...Osama was

the target, and perhaps any others planning/financing another attack.

Iraq never had WMD's that were a threat to the US. The Kurds received the brunt of those, unfortunately...:(

It is all about oil, nothing more, nothing less; even bush isn't stupid enough to believe the trash that he speaks about "spreading democracy".

[gulliver]

16. I think that is it. It was supposed to prove our strength ...

... but it seems to have disproved it. There's the strength argument and the idea that a democracy would spring up automatically and be friendly to the United States. That's being disproven too.

In the horror movies, there's always some panicky guy. The monster eats someone and the panicky guy grabs the machine gun and sprays a bunch of precious ammo into the trees. That's Bush.

[Cats Against Frist]

17. I think the reasons are all bullshit

but, if I had to think of the best BULLSHIT EXCUSE -- I like the "we're taking the battlefield to them, instead of them coming over here and bombing us."

Of course, this completely ignores the fact that that chain of logic has no basis in reality, because someone could just as likely be planning to attack the USA on our home soil, even with the war going on. Not to mention, then, in so many words, you're saying that you've decided to destroy a country and ravage its land, children and pride, as a "sacrifice" to keep the Golden Arches lit up. Which is exactly what Jesus would do.

[kentuck]

18. Yes, that argument says "they" are all the same...

If one Arab attacks us, then all Arabs are guilty...Because they all hate us...Why should we make a distinction?

[Emit]

19. This is a response from a right wingnut from another board...

I wouldn't categorize it as the best (if there is such a thing), but it's real and it's what I get a lot from these fanatics on the PBS board. CallMeIshmael is a xenophobic, fanatical religious right winger, and he's always talking about this stuff in reference to "draining the swamps":

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28993&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=60

Starting at this point:
Phoenix wrote:
One issue: Give us your MORAL ABSOLUTE(s) that justifies the war in Iraq.

CallMeIshmael wrote:
THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE.

Emit wrote:
The right of self-defense? I'm laughing as I write this. Self-defense. I could possibly argue that your response is an example of moral relativism (i.e., killing is always immoral, except to save a life), but I'm getting really bored with all that, and the Iraq situation has costs lives instead of saved them, so that's a real head-twister.

Let's see, I have a neighbor who has a gun. A big gun. And a friend of a friend of a friend told me that my neighbor might, just might, use that gun to KILL me, after all, it's a really big gun, you know. Can I then go kill my neighbor with the big gun now, in self-defense? Cause, you know, he has a really big gun, and he's not a nice guy.

By your argument of moral absolutes, I could. In my world, I can't.

By the by, how many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis? I've forgotten now.

CallMeIshmael wrote:
Have you ever heard uf the Mafia? Is it conceivable that they could use out-of-town hitmen to kill someone so the crime can't be traced to them?


Emit wrote:
Wait a minute, are you suggesting that my neighbor might be the MMMmafia! Or are you suggesting that I call the Mafia on my neighbor? Or does the Mafia thing have to do with Bush & Co. in Iraq? I'm so confused. But I see now why you need to take these points one at a time.

So, in your book, possibly with or without the Mafia's help (I'm still confused), I can implement a pre-emptive strike on my neighbor with the really BIG gun, and get him before he, someday, someday maybe, gets me? Wow.

That doesn't appear to be a good, moral example of "moral absolutes" in my book. Do you feel conflicted with this in relation to your ideas of your moral absolutes? You're comfortable with this?

At any rate, your reply about the Mafia thingy was definitely non sequitur, as Clara would say.

My advice, lay off the kool aid, man. It's no good.

CallMeIshmael wrote:
Don't be dense. You asked about the 9/11 terrorists not being Iraqi and I illustrated why Saddam might want to use people who couldn't easily be traced to him. Just because he denies his involvement doesn't mean we must believe him. He declared war on us. He tried to kill an ex-president (an act of war). He violated a cease-fire agreement so technically, we just renewed the war. Therefore, there was no preemption. We can't end terrorism without changing the politics of the Middle East. That is what we're doing. Iraq is where we're starting, as good a place as any. All's fair. He had it coming. He asked for it.
_________________

[snowbear]

20. Good for you Emit !

Wow.. that guy you were chatting with is a nut case! :silly:

[Emit]

21. Yeah, he's an ass...here's the rest of what he had to say...

Further on the same thread, I found the part he says about draining the swamps. PBS is a great discussion board--informative--but there are a few of these folks on the board. What I find truly alarming is that they actually believe this. They believe this shit. They are brainwashed or brain dead, I don't know, but no amount of reasoning gets anywhere with them. But, at least I can keep apprised first hand of how some of these folks are thinking. I'm pretty laid back, and used to think that other folks live and let live like I do. These folks are fanatical.

CallMeIshmael wrote:
To answer your question about proof of Iraq's invovlvement with terrorism, Saddam harbored and supported many terrorists. He had a terrorist training camp just outside of Baghdad at Salman Pak where al-Qai'da terrorists trained for the 9/11 attacks by practising taking over an aircaft using only box cutters. They practised on the fuselage of a passenger jet parked out in the open. Saddam supported and hid other wanted terrorist fugitives from justice besides al-Qai'da. He publicly announced his hostility to the U.S. and he vowed revenge. He tried to assassinate an ex-President. Should we allow ex-president Clinton to be assassinated? Is that okay with you? What if somebody tries it? Is that not an act of war? Saddam violated the terms of the Desert Storm cease-fire he had agreed to so technically, that war never ended. No preemption, just a resumption of hostilities, even the UN said so (Resolution 1441). Just the day before yesterday, the UN said WMDs and the materials to build them had disappeared from the sites where UN inspectors had seen them since after the start of the invasion of Iraq. Even the UN acknowledges they were there. Of course, Saddam not only threatened to use them on our troops, he actually did use them on Iraqis. So he had them.

So let's sum up. Saddam harbored and supported terrorists. He had and used WMDs and threatened to use them on us. He openly and boastfully declared war on the United States. He tried to assasinate an ex-president, an act of war. Need more?
_______________________________________________________________________
I responded with a couple of articles that totally debunked this Salman Pak story.

And later he wrote to several of us on the board:

"Yours are the lies. We're draining the swamp, in the Middle East and here at home. Warn anindo and Brazil and Juliana and the traitors on this board (like you)."

[XemaSab]

25. The problem is

and this isn't PC to say so, but these people we're fighting are wingnuts.

To them, becoming a martyr is a good thing, whereas we like to save our own skins.

You can't win a war against people who aren't afraid to die.

[kentuck]

27. The Japanese had Kamikazi pilots...

Suicide bombers.

[XemaSab]

30. Some people were willing to die

but most of the country wasn't into that.

Here, we've got countries where large segments of the population are OK with dying for a cause.

You know, using planes as missiles is such a novel idea. Complete and total historical anomaly, never to be seen again.

[kentuck]

31. Totally alien idea, isn't it?

But I have heard that most of the suicide bombers in Iraq are the people that come in from other Arab nations, not generally Iraqi people, true or not.

[XemaSab]

32. Either way

there are a whole lot of them over there willing to die to get us off their land.

[kentuck]

33. If we are there at this time next year...?

There will many more deaths. We will be deeper in the quagmire. It will be even more difficult to find an exit plan. The sooner we can find a way out, the better, in my opinion.

[XemaSab]

34. I dunno that it would be any easier to

get out now versus then.

It's an issue of how many casualties we can prevent on both sides by going versus staying, and nobody knows the answer to that.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Broad brush, but worse, probably wrong

There are indeed a good number of suicide bombers among the various groups of insurgents. There are also, I suspect, a good number of local farmers and others outraged by the continuing occupation who have no deeper wish than living to see it finished. We shouldn't oversimplify the problem in order to gain some sort of self-approval.

[XemaSab]

37. This is true

but like many broad brushes, there's fact in what I've said.

The people who attacked us on September 11th were willing to die so that we would get out of their country.

Guess where our old regional base was?

Guess where our new regional base is?

Mission Accomplished.