Philosophical questions about the reasons for the Iraq War

[Joe]

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time.

Emphasis mine.

Mixed messages, I suppose. The statement I cited above was taken from the 2003 State of the Union address, and should thus be taken with a larger grain of salt as that is his most important address. He states that there is no imminent threat. Pretty cut and dry.

If Iraq was considered a serious, current threat there would have been no talk of this preemption business. It would just be American taking action to dispatch an already well-established threat.

[Durandal]

Mixed messages, I suppose. The statement I cited above was taken from the 2003 State of the Union address, and should thus be taken with a larger grain of salt as that is his most important address. He states that there is no imminent threat. Pretty cut and dry.

If Iraq was considered a serious, current threat there would have been no talk of this preemption business. It would just be American taking action to dispatch an already well-established threat.

Except that he desperately tried to link Saddam to the World Trade Center attacks, meaning he wanted to establish Iraq as a threat that had already harmed the US and would do so again. And he managed to convince a healthy portion of the populace that that was the case based on essentially zero credible evidence. It's simply not as cut and dry as you'd like to think.

[Hamel]

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time.

Emphasis mine.

Mixed messages, I suppose. The statement I cited above was taken from the 2003 State of the Union address, and should thus be taken with a larger grain of salt as that is his most important address. He states that there is no imminent threat. Pretty cut and dry.

If Iraq was considered a serious, current threat there would have been no talk of this preemption business. It would just be American taking action to dispatch an already well-established threat.

What of the 45 minutes to deploy claim?

[phongn]

He's probably talking about the Cole bombing

USS Cole was not in international waters when she was attacked.

[Joe]

Of course he tried and failed to link al-Qaeda to Iraq. He also tried (and succeeded) to link the Taliban to al-Qaeda, but he never actually made the case that the Taliban represented the true danger to America, only al-Qaeda. We didn't go to Afghanistan to take down the Taliban, we went there to take down al-Qaeda. Links to al-Qaeda are just links to al-Qaeda.

And he managed to convince a healthy portion of the populace that that was the case based on essentially zero credible evidence. It's simply not as cut and dry as you'd like to think.

He flat out denied a clear and present threat to the United States in his most important speech of the year. He also spoke of Iraq as a "grave and gathering" threat in a 2002 address to the UN. How much more cut and dry do you want?

What of the 45 minutes to deploy claim?

UK. Tony Blair's government did make the case that Iraq posed a clear and present danger.

[Gil Hamilton]

He flat out denied a clear and present threat to the United States in his most important speech of the year. He also spoke of Iraq as a "grave and gathering" threat in a 2002 address to the UN. How much more cut and dry do you want?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he made a statement that Iraq is a "grave and gathering" threat, isn't that a direct statement right there that he was selling the idea that Iraq was a threat right then and there? After all, you don't call something a grave threat unless it is currently so.

[Joe]

He flat out denied a clear and present threat to the United States in his most important speech of the year. He also spoke of Iraq as a "grave and gathering" threat in a 2002 address to the UN. How much more cut and dry do you want?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he made a statement that Iraq is a "grave and gathering" threat, isn't that a direct statement right there that he was selling the idea that Iraq was a threat right then and there? After all, you don't call something a grave threat unless it is currently so.

If taken in a certain context. I believe Bush was trying to allude to Churchill's "the gathering storm," which he used to label Nazi Germany before it became the huge threat that it was.

[Gil Hamilton]

If taken in a certain context. I believe Bush was trying to allude to Churchill's "the gathering storm," which he used to label Nazi Germany before it became the huge threat that it was.

I suppose you can demonstrate that. If he called something a grave threat, then he is most likely saying that it is a current one. Otherwise, it wouldn't make very much sense.

Besides, you are playing a semantics game. Of course he didn't directly state in straight manner that Iraq was a clear threat than needed to be taken care of now. No politican in his right mind would read a speech that was that black and white without it being carefully worded so that he had a semantic loophole. After all, if he did and ended up being shown to be clearly wrong, he'd be screwed. But what you are ignoring is the general tone and implications that filled all the commentary from the current administration, which is what's important, and that's "Hey, Iraq is a threat to you, so you best get behind us now". That's why they pulled all sorts of BS to try to convince the American public that they were a threat to the American public without making clear cut direct statements. You can't possibly tell me that with all the statements that came out of the White House that they weren't laying on the implication that Iraq was a clear threat to Americans with a freaking trowel.

[Joe]

I suppose you can demonstrate that. If he called something a grave threat, then he is most likely saying that it is a current one. Otherwise, it wouldn't make very much sense.

Grave does not by definition mean dangerous. It can also be used in this case to suggest looking at something with seriousness. In any case, whatever Bush said in the past is made irrelevant by his SoTU comments. In the plainest language possible he states that there is no imminent threat.

Besides, you are playing a semantics game. Of course he didn't directly state in straight manner that Iraq was a clear threat than needed to be taken care of now. No politican in his right mind would read a speech that was that black and white without it being carefully worded so that he had a semantic loophole. After all, if he did and ended up being shown to be clearly wrong, he'd be screwed. But what you are ignoring is the general tone and implications that filled all the commentary from the current administration, which is what's important, and that's "Hey, Iraq is a threat to you, so you best get behind us now". That's why they pulled all sorts of BS to try to convince the American public that they were a threat to the American public without making clear cut direct statements. You can't possibly tell me that with all the statements that came out of the White House that they weren't laying on the implication that Iraq was a clear threat to Americans with a freaking trowel.

Actually, most of the intelligence and statements concentrated on future threats as well. The infamous uranium statement, for example, was clearly alluding to a possible threat that could emerge in the future - the development of a nuclear program in Iraq. I will admit that there may have been a few times when the Bush administration made claims of the regime being dangerous currently if not a huge threat to America, but the overall focus was not what Iraq could do to us now, only what they could do to us in the future, and preemptively acting to neutralize the threat.

[Durandal]

He flat out denied a clear and present threat to the United States in his most important speech of the year. He also spoke of Iraq as a "grave and gathering" threat in a 2002 address to the UN. How much more cut and dry do you want?

And he flatly made a statement contrary to that before the State of the Union. And he tried associating Hussein with al Qaeda, which was practically screaming that it was a current threat. One quote from the State of the Union does not negate either of these facts. Associating Hussein with al Qaeda should be enough to tell anyone that he wanted everyone to think that Iraq was an imminent threat. Actions speak more loudly than words.

[Joe]

He flat out denied a clear and present threat to the United States in his most important speech of the year. He also spoke of Iraq as a "grave and gathering" threat in a 2002 address to the UN. How much more cut and dry do you want?

And he flatly made a statement contrary to that before the State of the Union. And he tried associating Hussein with al Qaeda, which was practically screaming that it was a current threat. One quote from the State of the Union does not negate either of these facts. Associating Hussein with al Qaeda should be enough to tell anyone that he wanted everyone to think that Iraq was an imminent threat. Actions speak more loudly than words.

As I said, yes statements were made making Iraq out to be at best a minor threat currently to the United States. What most of the rhetoric and evidence concentrated on was the potential of Iraq to become a really huge threat to the United States. That was the primary justification for the war (publically, at least).

[Durandal]

As I said, yes statements were made making Iraq out to be at best a minor threat currently to the United States. What most of the rhetoric and evidence concentrated on was the potential of Iraq to become a really huge threat to the United States. That was the primary justification for the war (publically, at least).

If you want to imply that Bush's ineptitude when it comes to choosing his words is behind this discrepancy, then come out and say it. Otherwise, "minor" is not synonymous with "significant," which is the word he used in the quote I posted.

[Joe]

As I said, yes statements were made making Iraq out to be at best a minor threat currently to the United States. What most of the rhetoric and evidence concentrated on was the potential of Iraq to become a really huge threat to the United States. That was the primary justification for the war (publically, at least).

If you want to imply that Bush's ineptitude when it comes to choosing his words is behind this discrepancy, then come out and say it. Otherwise, "minor" is not synonymous with "significant," which is the word he used in the quote I posted.

Well, obviously. This is Dubya we're talking about here. Regardless, the primary motivation for the war was preemptively tackling a future threat, not a current one. As I've said, if Bush wanted to establish Iraq as a clear and present danger, he would have, and he wouldn't have bothered with justifying it with the preemption doctrine.

[Durandal]

As I said, yes statements were made making Iraq out to be at best a minor threat currently to the United States. What most of the rhetoric and evidence concentrated on was the potential of Iraq to become a really huge threat to the United States. That was the primary justification for the war (publically, at least).

If you want to imply that Bush's ineptitude when it comes to choosing his words is behind this discrepancy, then come out and say it. Otherwise, "minor" is not synonymous with "significant," which is the word he used in the quote I posted.

Well, obviously. This is Dubya we're talking about here. Regardless, the primary motivation for the war was preemptively tackling a future threat, not a current one. As I've said, if Bush wanted to establish Iraq as a clear and present danger, he would have, and he wouldn't have bothered with justifying it with the preemption doctrine.

Did the whole mess about justifying preemptive strikes come about before or after Bush began facing criticism for preemption? It's very easy to see him slightly changing his stance from "they are a threat" to "they will be a threat" when those opposed to the war started coming out and saying that he was, in fact, preempting, if that makes any sense. Basically, I'm asking if Bush was declaring Iraq a clear and present danger first. Then, when the anti-war people began claiming that he was preempting, he changed his comments to reflect what those criticisms claimed, because defending a preemptive doctrine would be more secure than saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and then being shown up when we finally got there and looked for ourselves.

Does that make any sense?

[Andrew J.]

Semantics make my head hurt...

Anyway, if Bush was trying to link Hussein with al-Qaeda, he was obviously attempting to prove that not only was he a current threat, but had in fact been a threat since at least 9/11.

[Gil Hamilton]

Semantics make my head hurt...

Anyway, if Bush was trying to link Hussein with al-Qaeda, he was obviously attempting to prove that not only was he a current threat, but had in fact been a threat since at least 9/11.

It got better than that. I seem to recall people trying to connect Iraq to the Oklahoma City bombings via a whole cavalcade of circumstantial evidence that had nothing to do with Iraq or, my favorite, the "he tried to kill my daddy!" accuse (though to be fair, there was a plot to kill President Bush Sr., but it was so ill conceived and inept that it actually shocked the CIA by how poor it was).

[Joe]

If you want to imply that Bush's ineptitude when it comes to choosing his words is behind this discrepancy, then come out and say it. Otherwise, "minor" is not synonymous with "significant," which is the word he used in the quote I posted.

Well, obviously. This is Dubya we're talking about here. Regardless, the primary motivation for the war was preemptively tackling a future threat, not a current one. As I've said, if Bush wanted to establish Iraq as a clear and present danger, he would have, and he wouldn't have bothered with justifying it with the preemption doctrine.

Did the whole mess about justifying preemptive strikes come about before or after Bush began facing criticism for preemption? It's very easy to see him slightly changing his stance from "they are a threat" to "they will be a threat" when those opposed to the war started coming out and saying that he was, in fact, preempting, if that makes any sense. Basically, I'm asking if Bush was declaring Iraq a clear and present danger first. Then, when the anti-war people began claiming that he was preempting, he changed his comments to reflect what those criticisms claimed, because defending a preemptive doctrine would be more secure than saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and then being shown up when we finally got there and looked for ourselves.

Does that make any sense?

As I recall, the preemption doctrine originated in 2002, probably specifically to justify the war in Iraq, and in that year's SoTU address he referred to Iraq as not so much a clear and present danger as part of an overriding problem - that is, rogue states with WMD who could give them to terrorists. So preemption of countries that could pose a threat to the U.S. in the future was originally Bush's idea.

[Gil Hamilton]

Grave does not by definition mean dangerous. It can also be used in this case to suggest looking at something with seriousness. In any case, whatever Bush said in the past is made irrelevant by his SoTU comments. In the plainest language possible he states that there is no imminent threat.

Uh-huh, so you are picking and choosing which adjective out of a dozen of so meanings that grave as an adjective can hold in order to support your point. Unfortunately for you, context of a phrase matters and the context of the statement indicates more the "significantly serious" definition of the word.

But that's semantics and I hate getting into semantics fights almost as much as I hate peole who use semantics to try and win tiny technical victories, like you are doing. The point is that that statement seriously implies that Iraq is dangerous, which was the intent of the statement. Continued below.

Actually, most of the intelligence and statements concentrated on future threats as well. The infamous uranium statement, for example, was clearly alluding to a possible threat that could emerge in the future - the development of a nuclear program in Iraq. I will admit that there may have been a few times when the Bush administration made claims of the regime being dangerous currently if not a huge threat to America, but the overall focus was not what Iraq could do to us now, only what they could do to us in the future, and preemptively acting to neutralize the threat.

First of all, you are dodging my point. No politician, in this day and age, ever makes the direct sort of statements that you are looking for, especially not the President of the United States. Their speeches and commentary are always carefully planned out in advance to be full of the semantic loopholes that you are now seizing on, for their own protection at a later date if what they are saying turns out to be hogwash. Even though now you are backpedalling and admitting that the Bush Administration did sell Iraq as a dangerous threat, you still seem to be ignoring that all their statements were designed to heavily imply in the minds of the American public that Iraq was a danger to them. That's why they said the Iraq was working with Al-Qaeda, tried to sell the WMD story that the country was packed with them, et cetera et cetera. All of that, of course, meant to scare the American people into supporting them (until, finally, they gave up and went with the humanitarian angle*). They were being incredibly heavy handed about it, actually. You have to admit that they were in fact trying to make the American people think that they were in danger from Iraq, and if you deny that, then you are bullshitting almost as much as they were.


*(even though you and I both know that the humanitarian angle was just another try to gather support because they weren't gathering very much support any other way)

[Joe]

I'm going to ask you one more time. If the main reason for going to Iraq was because of the current threat posed by the Hussein regime, then why bother with preemption? You don't need to establish a doctrine of preemption like the Bush doctrine to justify going to war against an already well-established threat, you just need to respond to that threat. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, there was no need for such a doctrine, and nothing more than the current danger with Iraq was used to justify the war. The current administration has gone to great lengths to establish Iraq primarily as a future threat, which is why the preemption doctrine was necessary to justify the war.

I have conceded minor points, Gil, but not the crux of my argument, which is that the war in Iraq was primarily motivated (at least publically, we both know that there were other reasons for this war that were not actively made public) by the threat that Iraq could pose in the future.

First of all, you are dodging my point. No politician, in this day and age, ever makes the direct sort of statements that you are looking for, especially not the President of the United States.

Speaking in vague language filled with semantic loopholes is one thing - Bush does it, all politicians do it. Making high-profile, highly public and clearly worded statements is another thing altogether. Regardless of what else Bush has said, in that one instance he very, very clearly stated in the most direct language that there was no imminent threat in Iraq. The "grave and gathering" is a much weaker labeling of a danger than would be the phrase "clear and present," which SHOULD have been used if Bush was, in fact, looking to label Iraq as a clear threat.

That's why they said the Iraq was working with Al-Qaeda, tried to sell the WMD story that the country was packed with them, et cetera et cetera. All of that, of course, meant to scare the American people into supporting them (until, finally, they gave up and went with the humanitarian angle*). They were being incredibly heavy handed about it, actually. You have to admit that they were in fact trying to make the American people think that they were in danger from Iraq, and if you deny that, then you are bullshitting almost as much as they were.

Of course there were implications. But directly-worded statements take precedent over vague implications.

I don't know why I've invested so much time in this, to be honest. What really matters is the real reasons for this war, not PR bullshit.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm going to ask you one more time. If the main reason for going to Iraq was because of the current threat posed by the Hussein regime, then why bother with preemption? You don't need to establish a doctrine of preemption like the Bush doctrine to justify going to war against an already well-established threat, you just need to respond to that threat. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, there was no need for such a doctrine, and nothing more than the current danger with Iraq was used to justify the war. The current administration has gone to great lengths to establish Iraq primarily as a future threat, which is why the preemption doctrine was necessary to justify the war.

I disagree. You don't establish a doctrine of pre-emption unless there is a threat or at least a threat that you are trying to sell to the public. After all, that's what pre-emption is; get him before he gets you. The whole "unless we get him now, he's going to get us" was one of the things that indicate that the Bush Administration was trying to sell the idea that Iraq was a threat to us now.

I have conceded minor points, Gil, but not the crux of my argument, which is that the war in Iraq was primarily motivated (at least publically, we both know that there were other reasons for this war that were not actively made public) by the threat that Iraq could pose in the future.

They gave up on that angle, remember? They went to the humanitarian crisis angle after it was clear the American public wasn't entirely convinced enough that they were a threat at all and if they went ahead on that angle, Bush wouldn't get much popular support.

Speaking in vague language filled with semantic loopholes is one thing - Bush does it, all politicians do it. Making high-profile, highly public and clearly worded statements is another thing altogether. Regardless of what else Bush has said, in that one instance he very, very clearly stated in the most direct language that there was no imminent threat in Iraq. The "grave and gathering" is a much weaker labeling of a danger than would be the phrase "clear and present," which SHOULD have been used if Bush was, in fact, looking to label Iraq as a clear threat.

How exactly does one statement counter several months of building up the idea that if we don't get him now, he's going to 9/11 us? The Bush Administration wouldn't have bothered trying to connect Iraq to Al-Qaeda or 9/11 or having shitloads of WMDs to be used on us if they weren't trying to establish them as an imminent threat. After all, you haven't answer that, why did they try all that BS to make Iraq look more dangerous than it was if they weren't trying to make them out to be a real threat in the here and now?

Of course there were implications. But directly-worded statements take precedent over vague implications.

A single directly worded statement doesn't take precendence over months and months of laying the idea that Iraq is a threat on with a trowel and attempts to make connections that have no other purpose except fearmonger?

I don't know why I've invested so much time in this, to be honest. What really matters is the real reasons for this war, not PR bullshit.

I assume because you are too stubborn to give up and walk away even after your arguments have devolved into meaningless semantic gymnastics and ignoring whole sections of discussion?

[Joe]

How exactly does one statement counter several months of building up the idea that if we don't get him now, he's going to 9/11 us? The Bush Administration wouldn't have bothered trying to connect Iraq to Al-Qaeda or 9/11 or having shitloads of WMDs to be used on us if they weren't trying to establish them as an imminent threat. After all, you haven't answer that, why did they try all that BS to make Iraq look more dangerous than it was if they weren't trying to make them out to be a real threat in the here and now?

That fits in with Bush's 2002 SoTU in which he labeled Iraq as part of a larger problem; rogue states with WMD and the danger involved in allowing terrorists to get ahold of some of those WMD. The ill-conceived attempts to link al-Qaeda to Iraq focused largely on the possibility of al-Qaeda receiving WMD from Saddam Hussein's tegime. As I have conceded, the Bush administration did indeed make the case that Iraq posed at least some danger, but even so the rhetoric put forth from the Bush administration focused primarily on what Saddam Hussein's Iraq could become, and the threat that could be posed by it in the future. The words "grave and gathering" imply this pretty heavily, and in the 2003 SoTU I have been referring to Bush stated that action had to be taken now in order to prevent the threat from going into a huge one.

I assume because you are too stubborn to give up and walk away even after your arguments have devolved into meaningless semantic gymnastics and ignoring whole sections of discussion?

No. I just realized it's a waste of time, but I won't walk away.

[Wicked Pilot]

Arabs and Israelis fighting over a strip of sand is not; that would be simple stupidity.

It is when they attack our Navy ships in international waters, killing 34 good servicemen and injuring 172 more.

Then again it really must not be a threat to security seeing as our government covered it up.

Even so, there was nowhere near the amount of anger and rage after the bombing of the U.S.S Cole as there was after the World Trade Center attacks. Did we mourn it? Yes. Did we attack Afghanistan and implement a regime change after bin Laden took responsibility for the bombing? Nope.

I was refering to the USS Liberty. 34 men were murdered and instead of us going out and kicking ass the old American way, our government covered up the whole incident.

[Axis Kast]

That's not a threat to national security. Ramming planes into buildings is a threat to national security. Arabs and Israelis fighting over a strip of sand is not; that would be simple stupidity.

The issue is that more serious hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians – or, worse, between Israelis and Iraqis – could further inflame a number of regional powers (i.e. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran), thus leading to adverse results for the United States. These range from an invasion of Iraq a la Desert Storm in 1991 (in this case, in defense of Israel) to reverberations on the oil market for our support of Tel Aviv. Both situations would probably result in adverse conditions this nation.

Iraq was a clear and present – I’d say imminent – danger to American national security interests, even if the United States itself as a territorial entity was free from the threat of danger.

... in Kuwait, not America. Did you fail geography?

Think, Wong. He was drawing our military to combat. He took the initiative. It was a situation involving the security of the entire region – wherein American national security interests were entrenched.

Ah, I see. You did fail geography. I suggest you check your atlas. You will discover that, contrary to the your belief (and that of Osama Bin Laden), America and Israel are actually separate countries.

Again, you ignore the potentially substantial results of our being forced into the middle of an Israeli confrontation with Iraq.

It is when they attack our Navy ships in international waters, killing 34 good servicemen and injuring 172 more.

Then again it really must not be a threat to security seeing as our government covered it up.

Proper analysis reveals that the U.S.S. Liberty incident was most likely an error, not an intentional strike.

[Durandal]

The issue is that more serious hostilities between Israelis and Palestinians – or, worse, between Israelis and Iraqis – could further inflame a number of regional powers (i.e. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran), thus leading to adverse results for the United States. These range from an invasion of Iraq a la Desert Storm in 1991 (in this case, in defense of Israel) to reverberations on the oil market for our support of Tel Aviv. Both situations would probably result in adverse conditions this nation.

None of which results in the destruction of American property. National security interests are things like terrorist attacks, not rising oil prices.

Iraq was a clear and present – I’d say imminent – danger to American national security interests, even if the United States itself as a territorial entity was free from the threat of danger.

And I'd say you're full of shit, but we've been down that road before, so there's no point in going back.

[Axis Kast]

None of which results in the destruction of American property. National security interests are things like terrorist attacks, not rising oil prices.

Not according to Jimmy Carter. Yours is a certain point of view, not the be-all/end-all analysis.

And I'd say you're full of shit, but we've been down that road before, so there's no point in going back.

It was never satisfactorily denied that Iraq could push its neighbors in ways we'd rather not permit.