Yes, and we would be “joined” by Australia and Great Britain if it were to hell and back. Both are quasi/defacto American poodles. They have been since the cessation of WWII. Largely to do with postwar debts and economic restructuring with America calling the shots.

You can pretend that the “Coalition of the Willing” was a construct of some international community consensus. I myself prefer reality.

“And yes, the Iraq was and still is illegal. We helped charter the U.N. We agreed to abide by it. And we did all the way up until Bush Juniors administration.

Robert – If you say that Muslims don’t think, you’re wrong. If you want an evidence just google this “Muslim Scientists”. If you need an immediate example, you need to know that the inventor of algebra Al-Khwarizmi, is a MUSLIM scientist.

Others say that if he had threw it on Saddam he would have been killed. Well, that’s true but the case isn’t different now. He is now imprisoned in Abu Gharieb Prison (nicknamed Arab Guantanamo). Then he’ll get killed. Tada! Same result!

And would you people STOP calling Muslims terrorists?! Islam does NOT stimulate Muslims to turn to terrorism. If you knew some knowlege of the Quran (Muslims Holy Book), you will know that Islam forbids killing of women, children, old men, and more surprisingly trees! It ONLY allows fighting soldiers. I agree that some Muslims have extreme beliefs but not the majority. Additionally, Muslims do NOT hate the West or Americans. On the other side, Bush is the most brutal terrorist!!!

If you need any knowledge of the miracles of the Quran go to
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/

If anything, this confirms everything the west knows about the Muslim world, that it is impulsive, and its people never learn to stop to think (in this case, take aim!) before they act. This is why impulsive Muslims turn to Jihad and terrorism, when there are far more productive avenues of getting their political objectives if they learned to THINK.

And they wonder why their socieites so s^&*?

You can pretend that the “Coalition of the Willing” was a construct of some international community consensus. I myself prefer reality.

How can one even have a reasonable discussion with someone who says things like that? Britain and Australia are powerful wealthy sovereign nations, and they joined us in forming a coalition, along with a few other smaller nations who only have token armed forces and who thus only sent token numbers of forces. That’s reality. The best you can do is call them “poodles?” Pretty lame.

I never said that there was an ” international community consensus.” But here again, the facts are on my side as they relate to the strands of our conversation. “Unilateral action” means action by one, not by several. An action can be multilateral without being a result of a widespread consensus. You moved the goal-line, like a jerk, because you KNOW I’m right about this. I

It’s a simple equation. 3 is not one, and 8 is not one, and 3 big and 24 small is not 1. If you were honest, you’d simply acknowledge this. Instead, you responded with an argument which amounted to claiming that I had suggested that 27 was the same as 70 or 80 or 90. Even though I had previously explicitly stated otherwise.

And here’s the thing. You could easily avoid foolish arguments simply by being accurate with your words. But no, you have to have the whole ball of wax and say “unilateral” even though that description is demonstrably inaccurate. Why be such a twit? How hard is it to say that the coalition of forces was composed of a few close allies and a couple dozen nations who went along but supplied little substantive support.

Yes, and we would be “joined” by Australia and Great Britain if it were to hell and back. Both are quasi/defacto American poodles. They have been since the cessation of WWII. Largely to do with postwar debts and economic restructuring with America calling the shots.

You can pretend that the “Coalition of the Willing” was a construct of some international community consensus. I myself prefer reality.

“And yes, the Iraq was and still is illegal. We helped charter the U.N. We agreed to abide by it. And we did all the way up until Bush Juniors administration.

There were also serious legal questions surrounding the launching of the war against Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”"[91]

“In November 2008 Lord Bingham, the former UK Law Lord, described the war a serious violation of international law, and accused Britain and the US of acting like a “world vigilante”. He also criticized the post-invasion record of Britain as “an occupying power in Iraq”. Regarding the treatment of Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib, Bingham said: “Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration.”"

Oh, I see. So if you espouse “freedom” and “democracy” and don’t outright kill your political opponents then you must be on the right side right?

Because Bush didn’t have this guy and his family killed for throwing a shoe at him? But he will have you killed if you oppose an invading army “America” in a sovereign country “Iraq.”

Jeremy, either there’s a substantial difference between the actions of the American government and folks like Saddam Hussein, or there isn’t. Why insist on obscuring, explaining away, or dismissing this point? You can’t answer that, can you?

sanjosemike, your point means nothing. People never contended that Suddam Hussein wasn’t a very evil person. What people do contend is that there are many more evil people in the world whom the United States doesn’t give two-shits about opposing. What people do contend is that America initiated a uni-lateral illegal war. All for what appears to be profit under the guise of the “War on Terrorism.”

Right, and all these “contenders” repeatedly choose to eschew addressing the issue of whether or not deposing Saddam Hussein was a worthwhile achievement, usually by claiming it’s not relevant. I find this absurd. Judging the merits of an action based on the before and after conditions is an approach most sane folks appreciate. It may not tell the entire story, but it’s most definitely relevant.

What I question the relevance of is your consistency argument. I agree that ideally the same standard would apply across all situations. But that’s unrealistic. When the entire host of real-world variables related to any given situation are considered(I could give you a list of 3 or 5 or maybe even 10 basic questions you have to ask), one realizes that you must pick your battles. I’ll cheerfully acknowledge that America’s motives were mixed here, and that we often fail to live up to our ideals. But those are extraordinarily crappy points to cite when arguing against actions that DO try to live up to those ideals. Even if such ideals are only one motive cited publicly while other less publicly prominent ones are certainly part of the equation. That’s politics and diplomacy. Grow up.

The “unilateral illegal” argument is IMO beneath contempt. And here I’ll cheerfully acknowledge that the effort was not as multilateral as many folks wanted, and that the approval process was not as drawn out as many had hoped. But in the end it was neither unilateral nor illegal. We were joined by other nations, most notably Australia and Great Britain. One can cite troop numbers in an attempt to suggest that this multilateralism was merely cosmetic, but the basic fact is that America has so many more soldiers than most other nations. So one could conjure this statistical argument for almost any international military effort. It’s a misleading argument when decontextualized from the reality of the numbers of troops various nations actually have available.

And Congress authorized Bush. A vote was held. [It wasn't close, BTW.] Here, the folks unhappy with that fact can split procedural hairs and cite narrow readings of text, but the route that was followed here cby Bush with Congress compares QUITE favorably with the way other wars have unfolded, wars which no one (ok maybe a few fringers here and there) claimed were “illegal.”

The hypocrisy is numbing. All of this further exacerbated by the fact that America was perfectly fine with this tyrants murderous rampage when it suited the United States interests.

Don’t worry, Jeremy. Obama is now president and there are plenty of fascist dictators left in the world that we can support going forward. We know how itchy you get with this whole “American hypocrisy” thing. We are on track for the old realplitik days of Henry Kissinger and George H.W. Bush. I’m sure the thought of that makes you optimistic indeed.

“WHAT IF A REPORTER HAD THROWN A SHOE AT SADDAM?

First of all, no reporter or his/her family would have survived the episode, for very long.” – sanjosemike

Oh, I see. So if you espouse “freedom” and “democracy” and don’t outright kill your political opponents then you must be on the right side right?

Because Bush didn’t have this guy and his family killed for throwing a shoe at him? But he will have you killed if you oppose an invading army “America” in a sovereign country “Iraq.”

sanjosemike, your point means nothing. People never contended that Suddam Hussein wasn’t a very evil person. What people do contend is that there are many more evil people in the world whom the United States doesn’t give two-shits about opposing. What people do contend is that America initiated a uni-lateral illegal war. All for what appears to be profit under the guise of the “War on Terrorism.”

The hypocrisy is numbing. All of this further exacerbated by the fact that America was perfectly fine with this tyrants murderous rampage when it suited the United States interests. We, America were the ones that sold him the chemical weapons of which he used on his own people.

I’m so sick of ignorant people like you that continue to support a factually indefensible position. We America are the enemy we speak of. Pretty words and empty truisms do not make us good. Actions have the last say on the matter and that being the case. The spin is over buddy. We aren’t the shining white knights we continually try to sell to the world while we rape it blind.

You don’t munch on the cookie while you swear straight-faced to man in front of you that you didn’t eat any cookies.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
-Hermann Goering

First of all, no reporter or his/her family would have survived the episode, for very long.

It’s “fun” to throw shoes at your savior and benefactor, especially when he laughs at it.

How short is the memory of Iraqis….

sanjosemike

I would add to that narrative is “occasional yet willful hypocrisy as far as our own standards of decency” and “shocking incompetence and ignorance on behalf of our leaders” – your simple story is really not complete without those two.

Even though there are some subjective judgments mixed in there, I am willing to basically agree. Ignorance and incompetence seldom shock me, though. :-)

And as far as our shoe thrower, I don’t think this was any attempt at discourse, it was an emotional expression pure and simple. But look at all the support the man’s getting, I would say this is representative of the emotions of a huge subsection of the world’s population. That is certainly significant.

What kind of evidence do we have that this was spontaneous, as opposed to premeditated? I honestly don’t know, but it’s worth asking. A premeditated stunt cannot IMO be pure, simple, emotional expression. Expression yes, pure or simple, no.

I have no doubt that some subset of folks sympathizes with this. How big a subset, I dunno. And while I am happy to note that, and even to note that it’s probably a substantial subset, that still leaves aside any consideration of the worthiness of those feelings and what they are connected to. When we first invaded Iraq (against my hopes), I went ahead and predicted right away that the best possible outcome, whatever that was, would NOT include any outpouring of gratitude, or even grudging thanks. America, as Goliath, is globally unloved. Folks worldwide are eager to resent and even despise the one nation that is the wealthiest and most powerful and thus the most able to indulge the various human appetites. So I know that whatever global resonance the shoe thrower is enjoying, that resonance rest on an underlying bedrock of generalized and long-standing antipathy towards America.

The most optimistic I can be about the American misadventure in Iraq is to hope that Iraq takes a path that makes our rash actions feel defensible given hindsight. If the next generation bring us an Iraq with a comparatively stable representative democracy, and if representative democracy manages to spread in the wake of our efforts, then it will be defensible to believe that the many deaths Mikes tabulates were not in vain.

I consciously avoid using a phrase like “worth it” here. I am not eager to work in the calculus of death. I’m willing to go so far as to notice both that as the number of deaths goes up and as the number of positive enduring achievements goes down, any given war is more regrettable. But they are all regrettable, because they are all manifestations of human failure to communicate and to treat one another with decency.

I notice that you didn’t address the point that the vast majority of the deaths and injuries you so painstakingly account were caused by (as I characterized them anyway) folks with motives worse than ours. I’d look more favorably on your characterizations if you had taken care to incorporate such details. I have trouble respecting any PoV about war which simply assumes that whoever “started it” ought to be stuck with most of the blame. A parent wisely won’t accept such an argument from a small child, and I won’t accept it from any adult who wants rational discourse.

You would state the numbers above reflect the “naive narrative of purity” put forth by doves. These numbers alone are legitimate reasons people are “unhinged”.

No, actually I would not state this. These numbers are legitimate reason for people to be troubled and concerned. But a statistical account about the numbers of deaths is simply that…a death toll. It tells us how many we ought to mourn. But it doesn’t speak to whether or we have achieved anything worthwhile.

Based on your response to this article, you must consider the dead and wounded numbers above to be acceptable and appropriate for this war. At what volume of deaths do you consider the war to be unacceptable?

No, I don’t consider the number of deaths to be acceptable. Every death is to be regretted and respected as a sacrifice. I simply don’t view war in terms of the type of calculus you suggest. I believe that war ought to be avoided, and I viewed invading Iraq as an expensive and risky endeavor that I personally wanted us to avoid. Once undertaken, however, I am willing to support some sort of outcome that means that those who die don’t die for nothing. There is no number of deaths at which I would be able to judge any war as either acceptable or unacceptable unless I had a good idea of what the alternative outcome would be had that given war been avoided.

We invaded a nation on the bedrock of poor information, not out of necessity. That’s the short of it.

Since I’ve already stated this, I am not sure why you repeated it.

First Saddam would have had every member of the reporters family gathered and imprisoned. Then they would have all been killed – women and children alike – one by one in front of him. When finshed with his family they would have skinned him alive in the middle of a soccer stadium and then beheaded him. When finished Saddam would have sent a few more bomb vests off to Palestine so they could kill a few more Isreali kids at school bus stops.

Yeah Iraq is better off. So is America. The rest of the world doesn’t hate us – just the Islamic Terrorists and the blind Doves who won’t believe in war until terrorists hit their own kids school bus stop…..

GW kept us safe for 7 years now it’s Chicago’s finest turn.

When he resinds the ability of law enforcement to wiretap and surveil suspected terrorists and then the nearby shopping mall blows up – maybe then you will remember and respect the tough decisions GW made.

God help us all.

As a matter of fact I have far fewer problems with our initial entrance into this war than with the incompetence, anti-intellectualism and moral bankruptcy which has followed. It is flat out intellectually dishonest to lump the people who are making this argument into the same group with the people insisting that the war had no justification at all.