Do you agree with Hitchens' on the Iraq War?

[Clinton Huxley]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

I thought it was all, "WMDs! he's got the dirty bombs! 9/11!"

Yeah, that's what I recall.

[Coito ergo sum]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

I thought it was all, "WMDs! he's got the dirty bombs! 9/11!"

Yeah, that's what I recall.

That would be one of the issues raised, and certainly the one focused on by those who decided to oppose the war after it began. However, that wasn't the only thing talked about. The only answer I have is that neither of you were paying much attention.

[Ian]

Cartoon fails of a basic premise: foreign policy disaster.

The Wars wasn't that. And, as Obama stated in his speech the other day, it has been a success. Unless he lied, of course.

Obama was saying the niceties expected of a President addressing the troops which had just left the country after 8+ years. Candidate Obama hit the nail more directly on the head when he called it "a dumb war". He didn't start it, but as President he was obligated to wrap it up as nicely as he could.

So, you think Obama thinks it's a foreign policy disaster? Or, now that things have worked out alright, it's not a disaster?

No, in the bigger picture it was a disaster and Obama rightfully sees it as such.

Link?

How might he see it as working out alright? America's reputation (soft power, political capital, diplomatic influence, whatever you want to call it) around the world was trashed and will remain so for years.

It's actually gotten worse since Obama took office, oddly enough. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45588

Untold billions if not trillions of dollars lost. And roughly four thousand five hundred troops US servicemen dead, and tens of thousands wounded.

Well, the troop deaths are obviously tragic, but if 4500 deaths is too much in a war, then there will never be a war that is acceptable. If that's the case, then folks ought to just specify that no wars are justifiable because people die. Fair enough. That isn't exclusive to the Iraq war.

And after all that, what's the bright light at the end of the tunnel? A shaky quasi-democracy where once stood a brutal dictatorship? The theoretical promise of democracy catching on around the Middle East? All that blood, treasure, and reputation need not have been spent to create that. The Arab Spring has toppled governments, and it sure wasn't inspired by anything the US and its handful of allies did in Iraq. Popular revolt might not have taken off or worked in Iraq as well it has in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya, but nevertheless it wasn't our place to initiate it.

The Arab spring would have happened had Saddam Hussein not been toppled? I mean, after Hussein was easily (relatively speaking) dispatched, down came Qaddafi (well he rolled over and played nice nice), and then, after the Iraqis started standing up and voting, well, the Arab Spring happened after that. Not before. Why no Arab spring in 2003? or 1993?

Wasn't our place to initiate it? Far more humanitarian grounds existed for the removal of Hussein than for the more recent removal of Libya, and you, as I recall, supported the Libyan invasion. The pretext for the war in LIbya was "he might kill his civilian citizens." Hussein was killing them by the hundreds of thousands. If humanitarian reasons was our place in Libya, then it most certainly was our place in Iraq.

It's a very, very weak argument to say that the Arab Spring was inspired by anything related to the Iraq War. It's easier to say that Facebook, Al Jazeera and Twitter made it more likely to erupt. That's why not in 2003 or 1993. And it all got started off after a Tunisian fruit vendor decided to set himself on fire.

No, it sure wasn't our place to initiate it. This isn't to say that he didn't deserve to be toppled. But there was no chorus of pleas from the people of Iraq for the world to invade and do something about Hussein, much less an actual uprising against him. We might as well charge into North Korea; their government kills and represses untold numbers of people, and militarily they're now a greater threat to our interests than Hussein had been between 1991 and 2003. Had a major uprising started in Iraq from within, and had the people of Iraq requested outside help lest they be crushed, perhaps we could have become involved - like in Libya. Your comparisons between iraq and Libya are never, ever going to hold much water. Much as you'd like them to be six of one/half-dozen of the other, they were totally different scenarios.

I'll grant you that there was little possibility of an uprising thanks to Hussein's police state, but that's not the point either. Why didn't Russia invade Iraq on humanitarian grounds? Why hasn't a coalition launched an invasion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Why haven't we invaded North Korea on the grounds that they're an enemy with a WMDs program? There are plenty of answers to these questions; maybe our leaders could have looked a little harder at the answers before starting a war.

[Coito ergo sum]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

Absolutely.

Do you really need me to show you?

First page of the Iraq War Resolution. I will quote the pertinent parts...

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq , including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994) ;

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and 'constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, 'supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

I suppose the fact that whatever media reports you were watching focused on only one reason for the war, that must mean that you could only conclude that there was, in fact, only one reason advanced. I never shared in your confusion, probably because when the Iraq War Resolution came out, I read it. It was published by link on BBCnews.com, as well as foxnews.com, cnn.com, and abcnews.com, as well as on the drudgereport.com at the time, among probably 100s of blogs and forums. I really don't know how you missed it.

[Clinton Huxley]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

Absolutely.

Do you really need me to show you?

I'm sure you'd love to. Pity about the 100,000 civvies who've died as a result of the West's noble humanitarian intervention. Doh.

[Drewish]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

I thought it was all, "WMDs! he's got the dirty bombs! 9/11!"

Yeah, that's what I recall.

That would be one of the issues raised, and certainly the one focused on by those who decided to oppose the war after it began. However, that wasn't the only thing talked about. The only answer I have is that neither of you were paying much attention.

Well then I would love to see this video of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, or Rumsfeld making that case (prior to the war) please. Thank you in advance for enlightening me.

[Ian]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

I thought it was all, "WMDs! he's got the dirty bombs! 9/11!"

Yeah, that's what I recall.

That would be one of the issues raised, and certainly the one focused on by those who decided to oppose the war after it began. However, that wasn't the only thing talked about. The only answer I have is that neither of you were paying much attention.

I was paying attention. And you're right that humanitarian reasons was one of the issues raised. But in terms of priorities, that was way down the list. WMDs, proliferation of them, and tenuous connections to 9/11 were the highlights. When Colin Powell went before the UN, he didn't deliver a long soliloquy on the necessity of liberating the Iraqi people for humanitarian reasons. He held up vials of Anthrax, talked about intelligence intercepts and how Hussein wasn't complying with the UN's requests for transparency. The excuses about humanitarian causes and fostering democracy wasn't spun up for months, until it became obvious that the original excuses were a combination of misinterpretated information and bullshit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

Absolutely.

Do you really need me to show you?

I'm sure you'd love to. Pity about the 100,000 civvies who've died as a result of the West's noble humanitarian intervention. Doh.

A lesser number than were dying unnaturally under Hussein. You'd prefer that?

[Clinton Huxley]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

Absolutely.

Do you really need me to show you?

I'm sure you'd love to. Pity about the 100,000 civvies who've died as a result of the West's noble humanitarian intervention. Doh.

A lesser number than were dying unnaturally under Hussein. You'd prefer that?

Well, my preference would be for nobody to die. If humanitarian reasons were the prime or even a major driver for the invasion, more planning would have been done for the aftermath. Clearly the US wasn't really that bothered.

[BrettA]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

Absolutely.

Do you really need me to show you?

I'm sure you'd love to. Pity about the 100,000 civvies who've died as a result of the West's noble humanitarian intervention. Doh.

+161,109

[Drewish]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

I thought it was all, "WMDs! he's got the dirty bombs! 9/11!"

Yeah, that's what I recall.

That would be one of the issues raised, and certainly the one focused on by those who decided to oppose the war after it began. However, that wasn't the only thing talked about. The only answer I have is that neither of you were paying much attention.

Well then I would love to see this video of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, or Rumsfeld making that case (prior to the war) please. Thank you in advance for enlightening me.

Still waiting to be enlightened.

[Coito ergo sum]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

I thought it was all, "WMDs! he's got the dirty bombs! 9/11!"

Yeah, that's what I recall.

That would be one of the issues raised, and certainly the one focused on by those who decided to oppose the war after it began. However, that wasn't the only thing talked about. The only answer I have is that neither of you were paying much attention.

I was paying attention. And you're right that humanitarian reasons was one of the issues raised. But in terms of priorities, that was way down the list. WMDs, proliferation of them, and tenuous connections to 9/11 were the highlights.

Part of the reason for that was myopic media reporting.

When Colin Powell went before the UN, he didn't deliver a long soliloquy on the necessity of liberating the Iraqi people for humanitarian reasons.

He was there for a very specific purpose, to address Resolution 1441, which itself did not have anything to do with the humanitarian crisis.

He held up vials of Anthrax, talked about intelligence intercepts and how Hussein wasn't complying with the UN's requests for transparency. The excuses about humanitarian causes and fostering democracy wasn't spun up for months, until it became obvious that the original excuses were a combination of misinterpretated information and bullshit.

It's not "spin." There WAS a humanitarian issue (far greater than in Libya, which was clearly "spun up" because it was an allegation of what Qadaffi "might" do).

The humanitarian reasons were advanced beforehand. They weren't advanced in the UN by Colin Powell because he was addressing a different issue.

In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, several mass graves were found in Iraq containing several thousand bodies total and more are being uncovered to this day.

Also after the invasion, numerous torture centers were found in security offices and police stations throughout Iraq. The equipment found at these centers typically included hooks for hanging people by the hands for beatings, devices for electric shock and other equipment often found in nations with harsh security services and other authoritarian nations.

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more

In a speech by Bush to the UN in 2002, the humanitarian issues are featured with roughly equal prominence with the other issues:

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others — again as required by Security Council resolutions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/ ... 1781.shtml

[Coito ergo sum]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

I thought it was all, "WMDs! he's got the dirty bombs! 9/11!"

Yeah, that's what I recall.

That would be one of the issues raised, and certainly the one focused on by those who decided to oppose the war after it began. However, that wasn't the only thing talked about. The only answer I have is that neither of you were paying much attention.

Well then I would love to see this video of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, or Rumsfeld making that case (prior to the war) please. Thank you in advance for enlightening me.

Still waiting to be enlightened.

You need to give me more than 30 fucking seconds.

But, see above the link to the transcript of Bush's speech to the UN in 2002. I think you can find a video of it on youtube if you must have it in video form, but the transcript provides the enlightenment you seek.

It was advanced with full clarity to the United Nations as one of the reasons we wanted to act. Before the war. Clearly, and unequivocally.

The fact is - and I have been saying this for 8 years now - it is willful blindness that is the only explanation for people thinking that the only reason advanced for the war was WMD. To think that is to not having been paying attention.

[Coito ergo sum]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

Absolutely.

Do you really need me to show you?

I'm sure you'd love to. Pity about the 100,000 civvies who've died as a result of the West's noble humanitarian intervention. Doh.

+161,109

Hussein murder 1,000,000, according to the New York Times. How many more would be enough to act?

Or, did we need it to be the "potential" that he "might" kill a few thousand...like the justification advanced for the war in Libya, and swallowed whole by almost every Iraq War opponent I know.

[Coito ergo sum]

Trying to remember - were humanitarian grounds for intervention specified before the war?

Absolutely.

Do you really need me to show you?

I'm sure you'd love to. Pity about the 100,000 civvies who've died as a result of the West's noble humanitarian intervention. Doh.

A lesser number than were dying unnaturally under Hussein. You'd prefer that?

Well, my preference would be for nobody to die. If humanitarian reasons were the prime or even a major driver for the invasion, more planning would have been done for the aftermath. Clearly the US wasn't really that bothered.

That isn't clear at all. That's just a glib mischaracterization on your part.

And, it wasn't just the US. Please don't deprive Blighty of the credit he richly deserves.