Will wonders never cease.

[kellinator]

There are a couple of Stormtroopers in full uniform wandering around the law school.

I have no idea why, but hey, I can dig it.

Comments

[sujata.livejournal.com]

*arches an eyebrow* Really, I had come to expect better of you. That last bit flirted dangerously with condescension. For the record, I never parrot party rhetoric, unlike many fans of FOX News and Limbaugh and other blustering Republican goons that I've argued politics with. Indeed, it would be rather difficult for me to do so, since I'm technically a democratic socialist, not a Democrat per se; there are plenty of my kind in Europe, but their party rhetoric is tailored to their countries, and it would do me very little good to parrot their rhetoric here.

I fear you are distinctly in the minority in regarding the intel relied upon sufficient to justify action against Saddam Hussein, in the form of invading Iraq. Most professional intelligence agents were firmly convinced of precisely what I asserted: i.e. that the intelligence was outdated, firstly, and of the unreliable "soft" variety instead of the far more compelling "hard" variety (which, though it can be vague or even erroneous, is still by its nature much more reliable as a rule).

I'm relieved we at least agree that it was very unwise of us to adopt a doctrine of preemptive strikes. To my way of thinking, that's such a dangerous concept that people of all political persuasions should find it frightening, and unite to dispense with it, pronto.

An area's strategic difficulties is no reason not to confront its madmen leaders, if those leaders genuinely constitute a threat to other peoples. That's what professional strategists, as my cousin tried to recruit me to be, are for. I readily admit that jungle (and mountains, and islands, and cities which after all are just urban jungles) is one of the worst terrain types to try to seize control of. But there are strategies to deal with each. And the difficulties did not stop us from opposing Japan (islands) or Germany (a fair amount of which is hilly and mountainous) in WW II. If the cause is just, the territory simply must be dealt with. So I, in turn, find your argument that it's insufficient to point to others who poser a much greater threat, to be itself insufficient.

Saddam Hussein purchased a heck of a lot of sarin from us in the 1970s and 1980s, for crying out loud. He'd been very busy attacking Kurds and other Iraqis with the stuff, since then, and he's been kept bottled up too tightly to get his hands on a fresh supply throughout the 1990s and 2000s thus far. Frankly, I'm surprised you think he'd have any left to amount to much; he's used almost all of it, you can be sure. He's not the type of man to save some for a rainy day. *wry smile*

[dwivian]

Not condescending towards you, but towards far too many people I've had to have this conversation with. I can count on you to be logical and reasonable, and I hope that our exchanges (some of which I make as an exercise, holding your position before we start) bring enough information to others that they learn something beyond what the left or right have put out on their captive media.

There is very new intel, 1999-2002, that was also used in the decision to effect regime change. In fact, the British intel about the uranium sale from Niger (which is considered acceptable by senior EU intel, to this day) is of that recent (and hard) variety. Still, from those I've had the pleasure of talking with (not as many as you, I'd warrant), they agree that we didn't have much in the solid intel arena, mainly because the UN wouldn't force the issue and get some significant operations in force to PROVE where the WMDs went. My hope with a war effort of any kind was that it would be a UN sanctioned ENFORCMENT action, with the inspectors part of the insurgency. Alas, that is not what happened, and considering what France had to hide, was not ever going to be the way of things.

I hate to say it, but I'm glad that Saddam was not as careful with his weapons, as that means they can't be uncovered by our enemies unseen to be used against us later, but it still hurts to think of all the deaths that had to happen to use up such a significant resource. *wry back at ya*

You must acknowledge that we never opposed Japan on her soil, but on a few islands and with a massive bombing campaign. Likewise Germany was bombed into submission, with most of the groundwork done by Europe and not ourselves. With the sudden arrival of fresh troups and supplies, it was inevitable that Italy and Germany would fall. But, was the cause so just? We know the evils of Germany, but what was horrible about Italy that wasn't just as problematic in Africa, or Russia, or China? Japan attacking us directly forced our hand where we might have left them alone to conduct their exercises in Australia and China unchallenged, so what was so evil there that wasn't just as bad elsewhere?

War is almost never justifiable, I find.

And, I dare say that the lessons learned in Korea AFTER WWII were what motivate us to not re-enter that theatre, so earlier wars are not going to make your point. But, I fail to see what is insufficient about my point. You tried to show that there were worse threats, and I showed that there were better victories. It is insufficient in this case (the decision to have a war) to raise the greater risk and greater enemy, if the obvious outcome is the greater loss in fighting the battle. Diplomacy may yet win in Korea, as the leadership is still willing to talk.

My argument is that, when assessing who a war should be against, that you should NEVER just pick the greatest threat; in fact that may be the fastest way to ruin. You instead pick the worst threat you can beat handily, as this will improve your own morale, reveal to your enemies that you are willing to wage war, and potentially escallate the Diplomacy that saves lots of money and lives on both sides. Is that still insufficient? Yes, I admit I have the presumption that somehow, a decision to go to war has been made already, in that sufficient enemies exist as to cause a need for action. As I can't justify war personally, I really can't make a case for why picking one is particularly a good idea, except in the case of forcing others back to the bargaining table, which is such a tenuous game as to be outside my reasoning.