Garbage. It doesn't matter if they have such a program or not; if they don't, and we feel like invading we'll just lie and say they do, or come up with some other excuse.
Evidence, please.
You can begin by submitting some proof that we invaded Iraq not to remove a regime that we considered threatening, and which much of the world believed was caching WMD, but for some other, special reason known only to you.
America is a nation of bullies; we don't attack people because they are a threat. We attack them because we think it's easy. And we tend to think that attacking anyone without nukes qualifies as "easy". And anyone who thinks that the fact that attacking someone would be stupid will stop America from doing just that is ignoring American history.
Evidence, please.
What you’ve done, so far, is to dishonestly package numerous unnamed instances of American involvement overseas that you believe are immoral under a new classification, inexplicable. And all this, without explaining how we can know that our actions were “stupid,” and using a technique (cherry-picking through history) which extracts individual actions from their contexts. Very ineffective.
You also hold up (once again) the unconvincing canard that the true qualifier of rightful intervention is whether or not it will be a hard fight, as if international relations is synonymous with a prizefight.
You are the one making the claim that we thought there were WMD. Our behavior isn't consistent with that; we acted like people who didn't think there were any to find. Which is why we bypassed all those armories - we knew quite well there were no WMD to find
And I can point you to numerous speeches, extensive public reporting on intelligence products, a post-invasion survey effort, and historical precedent to substantiate my position that our leadership genuinely believed Saddam Hussein to possess weapons of mass destruction. I can also refer you to post-hoc intelligence reviews that confirm problems of tradecraft and which may imply politicization of the analysis, but which never once suggest that it was all a sham. But, by all means, share with us the source of your more accurate knowledge.
The bypassing of those armories can mean any number of things. It could reflect an inadequate ops plan; that we already had information – perhaps from the U.N.’s experience – that the armories did not house unconventional weaponry; or that the oil infrastructure was given the same priority as locating WMD (which makes plenty of sense, since we were hoping to use oil exports to finance the reconstruction process).
Which we didn't.
Do you open the newspaper? We’ve been pumping money into reconstruction programs since we arrived.
Because we were going after Iraq first. And because anyone with two brain cells knew it was going to be a disaster for us.
Again, by your own logic, Iran should count itself relatively safe.
And did I say that no other countries did such things ? No I didn't. And your examples are less extreme than ours. If it was the norm, like you are claiming, every country would almost continuously be at war.
Actually, you’re wrong. Counting forward from 1946, Fig. 1.3 (p. 26) of the Human Security Report 2005, ‘The countries that have experienced the highest number of international armed conflicts, 1946-2003,’ based on PRIO, 2004 data, reveals that the United Kingdom (21) and France (19) were both ahead of the United States (16). A second table, 1.4, uses data that includes intrastate conflicts as well as interstate. In that case, India, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia all exceed the United States. Iran was right behind us, with one less conflict year since 1946-2003. Iraq was substantially ahead.
I’d also like to know how “our examples” are less extreme than Russia’s involvement in Afghanistan; the “Great War” born of Zaire’s collapse; and the Iran-Iraq War. We may have the best toys, but, interestingly, we don’t always fight the worst wars.
False dilemma. "Seeing to your interests" isn't the same as "commit mass murder for profit".
Because anybody who died in Iraq was the victim of mass murder. We just lined them up against a wall and opened fire. Because you dishonestly said so.
Exactly. Because it came out. And that's the only reason why.
It sometimes come out in Russia or China, too. And then it happens again.
And if more countries have nukes THEY will also be less inclined to play bully, just as we will be.
Yes. I’d certainly feel much, much safer if the DRC developed nuclear weapons tomorrow.
By invading and killing more people than those nukes are ever likely to ? No thanks.
By fighting the spread of proliferation through a variety of means. You’ll kindly notice that I’ve not called for military action against Iran.
But that's not why we attacked; we attacked to get them out of the way so we could move on to Iraq.
Evidence, please.
Yes, invasions, massacres, destruction, torture; just "par for the course".
Sounds like the North Vietnamese to me. Spot on!
What makes you think I support our screwing with other people's countries for our own benefit at all ?
You clearly forgive quite a bit of screwing in the other direction.
Unless some other country manages to develop the logistical capabilities of America, they are not likely to be able to intervene on that scale. Whine about it when China or Russia develops a blue water navy, say in the next few decades.
France dictates terms in Sahelian Africa without much difficulty, despite much-degraded capability.
The absence of the threat of American involvement might have interested effects on North Korean and Iranian behavior. It almost certainly would have had a deleterious impact on Saddam Hussein’s decision-making. One wonders, too, what would recently have happened to Georgia.
This "if we didn't do it somebody else will" is no different from religious apologist saying "if religion disappears some other philosophy will take its place" and you guessed it, its a false dilemna.
Not if your aim is to make the world a better place through binding of the United States.
I find it interesting you didn't mention the EU, since you did mention a multipolar scenario earlier, one would think the EU would be one of those powers. Playing along your, if the US isn't top dog scenario, why not the EU. Or does Europe not commit enough atrocities these days for you to play the tu quoque card?
The EU isn’t a magical cockpit of morality. In point of fact, they have been more assertive about the Iranian nuclear program than the United States. The EU has said explicitly that what Iran is doing amounts to pursuit of the bomb. And major member France does exactly what it pleases, within its means, in Sahelian Africa.
Funny you mention China, since they tend to predominantly keep the crap going on in their country within their own borders, whilst their influence in Africa seems to be in the form of so called "soft power". Last time I checked soft power seemed to be less destructive to a country than invading it.
And what soft power has done for the people of Darfur! Oh, happy day!
Yes, soft power is typically less deadly than invasion. However, with respect to invasion, if we follow the medical precept of doing no harm, all of our recent excursions prior to 2001 – into Grenada, into Panama, into Bosnia, into Kosovo – greatly improved conditions. In Grenada, the date of the American invasion is now a national day of thanksgiving.
In fact, just for interest, if China and the US magically reversed positions, in terms of resources, military, economy etc, why the hell would they think they need to use military force to achieve some political objective lets say getting hold of oil, when their diplomatic offensive seems to have done a good job and is less costly than war.
This “diplomatic offensive” countenances genocide.
Black / white fallacy. Hey, you obviously love quoting the names of logical fallacies, so I thought I would do it too. I trust the concept of less war vs no war isn't too subtle for you.
It’s up to you to prove that the United States is more an initiator of useless wars than an inhibitor.
I love your choice of words here, "considered the unfounded aggressors". Do you count yourself among those who consider it, or are you refering to someone else.
I’m still waiting for you to address the argument.
