Can I jump in? I suspect this thread is pretty much dead, but what the heck:
On your suburban picket fence analogy:
Obviously in the story you constructed there'd be little alternative to vigilante action to defend your family. But your analogy is weak. We were protected by considerably more than a white picket fence. The "shotgun" and "pit bull" were decrepit and sickly. The police had inspectors digging through the man's house. 2/3rds of the man's property were patrolled by strike aircraft (not sure how to work that into the analogy, or the thousands of troops we had stationed nearby).
There's a legitimate question over what we should have done about Saddam. But your analogy doesn't have much to do with it.
On WMD:
If we really knew precisely where the WMD's were (as the Sec of Defense claimed in the runup to the war) why not tell the inspectors on the ground and let the go impound them. That would have been much more effective than letting them be shipped off to Syria.
I'm not so sure they were ever there. Yes, he used them, but that was 20 years ago, back when we (and others) were supplying him with them. Given the circumstances since, (Gulf War I and sanctions) it would have been difficult for Saddam to maintain those weapons, let alone add to the stockpile.
On terror:
No doubt Saddam was a bad man, as you conclude. But we're in a war on Terror, not a war against bad men. There are a lot of bad men out there. In a perfect world, we would defeat all of them. But with limited resources, was it worth attacking a country with almost no viable military strength?
On occupying Iraq:
I agree 100% with you about our Bush Sr. abandoning Iraqi dissidents, although I'd put some blame on Clinton as well. But the German analogy is silly. It was a completely different situation There were approximately zero US combat casualties during that occupation.
That rallying terrorist in Iraq is a good thing:
Tell that to Madrid. Sure, maybe 99% of the new terrorists are in Iraq. That still leaves dozens of new international terrorists. As you pointed out, it only took 19 on 9/11.
"The problem is that we won too quickly:" So Iraq would be better off if we'd destroyed more of Iraq and killed more Iraqi?? The problem is that we've mishandled the occupation.
On awakening the sleeping giant:
Here's another analogy for you. We were awakened by beestings. (Yes, 3000 dead is horribly worse than a few beestings. It's an analogy.) Our reaction (in Iraq) has been to attack a beehive. "Maybe that'll make those bees fall in line." Hmmm...maybe.
And your claims about what an unchecked Saddam would have done applies to 1991, not 2003. Saddam was not unchecked when we chose to attack.
On Abu Ghraib:
It's not at all like blaming the parents of a murderer. Parents don't have a chain of command over their adult children.
No one was commanded to torture. But the commanders and political leaders laid the groundwork. You seem familiar with Judaism. Perhaps you know the concept of a "wall around the Torah"? Briefly, the Torah provides the law, but Jews should avoid actions that bring them close to violating the law. (Not a great description, so hopefully you know the concept. Let me know if I should elaborate.) The administration tore down the "wall around the Torah" which made it very likely that the law would be violated. To our great moral and worldly loss.
"If you want to be on the side of the terrorists..."
A really cheap shot, and one I hope you'll regret when you re-read it. I'll blame on 2am posting.
If you'd like to continue this, I can be emailed here: (remove line breaks and spam, maybe a little paranoid, but I'd like to keep this address light on the spam...)
jon
spam
marcus
spam
at
apple
spam
bey
dotcom
