New at Reason

David Weigel | April 6, 2006

Michael Young consults author Kanan Makiya for a progress report on Iraq.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Mycoherbicide Mania! | Main | The Raid That Paid →

See all 35 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

VM|4.6.06 @ 4:08PM|#

Thank you for an interesting read.

respectfully,
the moose

|4.6.06 @ 5:58PM|#

To just leave the situation to fester, as the Arab world and Europe seemed to want to do,

Yeah, no one ever asked for the sanctions to be lifted ... If it wasn't for the US's fierce opposition, the sanctions would have been lifted long before 2003.

They thought that for the first time in 50 years of American foreign policy in the Middle East they were finally doing something the Arab peoples wanted.

Yeah, clearly the Arabs wanted their cities to be bombarded by the US. This is even more true now than before. I would venture a guess that not many Arabs buy into the idea that the US invaded Iraq to democritize it, even among those who supported the invasion. They supported the invasion for their own reasons and not necessarily because the US bringing democracy to Iraq.

|4.6.06 @ 6:09PM|#

"Yeah, no one ever asked for the sanctions to be lifted ... If it wasn't for the US's fierce opposition, the sanctions would have been lifted long before 2003."

And if the sanctions were lifted then what? The anti-war line, at least on Hit and Run, is that the sanctions and containment were working swimmingly and there was no reason to invade because Saddam was being contained. Well, which is it? Annon, you actually stumble onto the truth which is that by 2002 the sanctions were falling apart and could not be enforced any longer. Had the coalition not invaded, it was just a matter of time before the sanctions completely collapsed and Saddam was welcomed back to the international community. Only the most ardent moonbat would believe that that would have been a good result or that Saddam would not have been a threat to the region and the world under those conditions.

b-psycho|4.6.06 @ 6:19PM|#

What "international community"?

The existence of people like Saddam disproves the entire idea. Nations & their leaders do whatever the hell they want, these assumptions that there's some form of global order beyond force & threat of force are getting us nowhere.

In time, maybe the Iraqis would've overthrown Saddam themselves. It may have been rather messy, but at least we wouldn't be trying to referee a civil war.

Jesse Walker|4.6.06 @ 6:26PM|#

The anti-war line, at least on Hit and Run, is that the sanctions and containment were working swimmingly and there was no reason to invade because Saddam was being contained.

There is no single antiwar line at Hit & Run. I know I'm not the only one here who opposed the sanctions as well as the war.

Only the most ardent moonbat would believe that that would have been a good result or that Saddam would not have been a threat to the region and the world under those conditions.

Saddam was never a threat to "the world." And if saying that makes me a "moonbat," well, I guess some "warblog" can "fisk" me.

|4.6.06 @ 6:38PM|#

Thank you, Jesse. I was also against both sanctions and the war and I still am. Not even John has been able to convince me that the war was for some good reason, other than good ol' imperialism, and that doesn't even really make sense to me.

So I guess I'm a moonbat.

I do like the night, and the moon...I'm also nearly blind, but I can't fly.

:P

|4.6.06 @ 6:56PM|#

John, do you believe that Jesse, Lowdog, and Vanya, being against the invasion, were "supporters" and "enablers" of Sadaam? If not, please consider mustering the courage and intellectual honesty to apologize to Joe. If so, please let them know so they can start ignoring you as well.

|4.6.06 @ 7:06PM|#

Speaking of moonbats. . . is this the same John who argued that the media should not portray Baghdad as a scary and dangerous place, since it's only about twice as dangerous as Nuevo Laredo?

|4.6.06 @ 7:58PM|#

Absolutely Jesse and the like are moonbats. I guess you folks think that Iran and North Korea are not threats either. They are small third world countries and in the case of North Korea have a hell of a lot less going for them than Iraq ever did. Going back of course, I suppose Israel was wrong for bombing Bahgdad in the 80s because Iraq could never be a threat to anyone. In addition, I guess the U.N. was wrong for expelling Iraq from Kuwait, it was just small dispute between two unimportant countries. I am thinking that the people of Kuwait and Iran might disagree with your assessment of how benign Iraq under Saddam was. To have an argument over whether a murderous dictator who gassed his own people and twice in one decade invaded his neighbors, is so stupid as to be beyond belief. Yes you people are moveon moonbats. The containment argument while wrong at least tries to offer a sollution. The "Iraq is a small country that never bothered anyone argument" is stupid beyond belief.

|4.6.06 @ 8:14PM|#

John, it's easy to tell when you're flustered because your grammar and spelling get even worse than they normally are. And you become even more dishonest, like accusing people of calling Iraq under Sadaam "benign."

Of course, I don't expect you to apologize for lying about what others have said in your juvenile attempts to justify your lies about other people.

Since I suspect no one here really respects you, even those who generally agree with you, why not go find one of the many military folks who disagree with the invasion and call them names? Leave us ignorant civilians alone, for God's sake.

I shouldn't have even written this, but I certainly am done with you until you can muster the intelligence and courage to admit your dishonesty. Adios, amoeba!

|4.6.06 @ 8:26PM|#

See, that's why it's fun to disagree with folks like R.C. (with whom I often disagree). He doesn't call names (that I've seen) or accuse those he disagrees with of supporting mass murderers, and he's rather knowledgeable about a variety of things, so that even if I still disagree with him, I often learn something in the process. And his spelling is impeccable!

|4.6.06 @ 8:45PM|#

I wonder what a map of the ME would look like had we never interfered with Iraq. Kuwait would certainly be part of Iraq now. I can't imagine that Saddam could resist invading Saudi Arabia. If Iraqi expansion succeeded, would Turkey have become involved? Things would definitely be different than they are today. I wonder if they would be better or worse?

I'm pretty sure about one thing: Saddam would have been happy to keep the oil flowing.

|4.6.06 @ 10:52PM|#

There is no single antiwar line at Hit & Run.

From where I'm sittin', I don't think there's a single prowar line at Hit & Run either.

Regarding John, I don't think we should knock him for takin' a bold and original stand against the savagery of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime. ...I think we should knock him for building straw men in our midst like, "I guess you folks think that Iran and North Korea are not threats either."

|4.7.06 @ 12:15AM|#

Les wrote: "He doesn't call names (that I've seen) or accuse those he disagrees with of supporting mass murderers,"

Didn't R.C. call people who opposed the invasion of Iraq "objectively pro-Saddam"?

|4.7.06 @ 12:37AM|#

A "progress report on Iraq" twists the meaning of the word. How can we speak of "progress" regarding an action that should never have been taken, was based on wild duplicity, and whose chief motivators had the well being of the Israeli government as their primary concern?

John,

Our government aided Saddam's regime in its realized threats against Iran. Our government aids the Israeli government in its realized threats against the Palestinians. (This unethical stupidity motivated the 9/11 attacks against us.) Of course Iraq wasn't a "threat to the world" and especially not us. So our government shouldn't have attacked Iraq.

And now I have a question for you, Johnny moonbat boy. What likely result in Iraq could possibly justify any further loss of American lives and American dollars?

|4.7.06 @ 1:25AM|#

Jack,

If that's true, I take it back.

Fuck you, RC!! FUCK! YOUUUUUUU!!!!!!

|4.7.06 @ 1:36AM|#

R.C.,

If you didn't say that, I'm sorry and I take it back.

If you did, but you're sorry, then I'm sorry too, and again, I take it back.

If you did, and you're not sorry, I'm still sorry because there was no need for yelling. I should have simply said, "Fuck you."

But I really hope you didn't say it and if you did I hope you regret it, because I hate myself when I swear like that. There's just no call for it.

Still, your spelling and grammar are generally excellent.

Who said what now?

|4.7.06 @ 4:46AM|#

Les, how am I supposed to make a serious comment with all your theatrics going on? :)

|4.7.06 @ 5:03AM|#

Our government aided Saddam's regime in its realized threats against Iran.

True.

Our government aids the Israeli government in its realized threats against the Palestinians.

Also true, though there's been so much water over the dam since 1948, it's a slightly moot point to argue today "Isreal shouldn't exist".

(This unethical stupidity motivated the 9/11 attacks against us.)

If you really believe what OBL tells you, then I've got a bridge to show you.

Of course Iraq wasn't a "threat to the world" and especially not us.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree this is a statement of fact.

Iran having nukes is not good for us, or anybody but maybe Iran. Saddam would have gone down this same road as soon as he could get away with it. Which was impending because the UN sanctions -- you know that pure and pristine thing called the UN -- were about to vaporize.

If you think Saddam wouldn't have been developing nukes as soon as the walls came down, I not only have a bridge you should see but also some beach front property.

Saddam may not have had WMDs, but I think you're a fool if you trust his intentions towards us. A double fool if you think he wouldn't have put WMD programs back on the road as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

btw, RC Dean is right when he says that it simply wasn't clear that Saddam had no WMDs. There were in fact valid reasons for believing he did have them, and Saddam Insane acted like he might have them right up to the last minute.

__________________________________________

Put aside US stupidity for just a moment (which we'd probably agree there's been some of).

Look at Saddam. Why did this lunatic continue to defy the US when it was crystal clear where Bush was going to go with things? They don't call him Saddam Insane for nothing.

This guy got his kicks by thumbing his nose at us. Not because we did him wrong, but because he's that kind of lunatic.

Letting that kind of lunatic get nukes cannot be good. So I don't agree when you say he wasn't a threat.

OTOH, though, was the threat big enough to justify the invasion? That's debatable.

|4.7.06 @ 5:06AM|#

Hate to go back on thread, but btw this guy Michael interviewed doesn't sound like he's got a clue WTF is going on with Iraq.

|4.7.06 @ 8:29AM|#

"If you really believe what OBL tells you, then I've got a bridge to show you."

I believe what OBL tells me as much as I believe what W or any other politician tells me. However, I do recognize that what they say in their public pronouncements has meaning to their target audience, and that it wouldn't be said if it didn't gather them support.

If you don't believe that what OBL says rings true to many in the ME, and that it helps him gain support from the populace, then I have some, um, fertile land to sell you in FL...

|4.7.06 @ 8:44AM|#

"This guy got his kicks by thumbing his nose at us. Not because we did him wrong, but because he's that kind of lunatic. "

So then you'd say that Israel is that kind of lunatic as well, as they constantly "thumb their nose" as the U.N.? Why should we have cared what Saddam did? He never threatened us, and in fact, for a long time, was a close ally in the region. His regime, while hateful in its own way, was a counter to the rampant fundamentalism on all sides (which are the direct results of more of our wonderful interventions). The fundamentalists in Iran and SA had much more to fear from than we did, and guess what, I'm happy when they're worried about Saddam. I don't want to make the world safe for their kind of fundamentalism. It's one of those classic unintended consequences, like our entry into WWI, which set the table for Hitler, or our entry into WWII, which made Eastern Europe safe for Stalin to murder millions.

No, while I think it would be nice to have a world free of nukes, I doubt it will ever happen. And the more we flex our conventional muscles, the more other states will want to have them to defend themselves from us or their neighbors who do have them.

And as long as we aren't sticking our nose in other people's business, the only countries who are going to care what we do are Canada and Mexico. If we didn't have a military presence in every part of the world, and have the track record and stated goal of being willing to use it for whoever our friend is at this moment, people wouldn't think that bothering us would accomplish anything in their part of the world. As it is, we do, we will, so they do, and so they do bother us.

How many terrorists are attacking China? Japan?

|4.7.06 @ 8:46AM|#

How many terrorists are attacking China?

Aren't there violent separatists in Xinjiang province?

|4.7.06 @ 8:50AM|#

The guy raises a good point about the internet dump of the Iraqi intelligence archives.

I wonder how many of those power drilled corpses the Shiite Interior Ministry toops keep piling up were identified through these files.

|4.7.06 @ 9:00AM|#

joe-

"Power drilled"? Seriously?

Please tell me you're being facetious. Please.

|4.7.06 @ 9:03AM|#

Sorry, t.

Holes in their faces and joints. This is from months back.

|4.7.06 @ 9:05AM|#

joe, the fact that you bring this up means that you supported the rape rooms and plastic shredders.

|4.7.06 @ 9:15AM|#

thoreau,

My personal habits, whether related to internet surfing or recycling, are really none of your business.

;-)

|4.7.06 @ 9:40AM|#

My personal habits...

My God, you mean that supporting Baathist tyranny is a hobby for you?!?!?

theOneState|4.7.06 @ 10:07AM|#

And if saying that makes me a "moonbat," well, I guess some "warblog" can "fisk" me

Ewwwww.....

If you really believe what OBL tells you, then I've got a bridge to show you.

Sorry, this line is no longer useful, as there is no longer any place on earth a bridge might not be built no matter how useless.

This is a fun thread. Very substantive on personal matters like Joe's torture fetishes and Nick's about being fisked.

I agree with Real Bill and think everyone else is too selective in their memories.

|4.7.06 @ 10:11AM|#

Real Bill,

How far back do you want to take this "non-interferecne with Iraq" thing? The Iran/Iraq War? Saddam's days as a CIA asset in the 70s?

|4.7.06 @ 11:45AM|#

Kahn:

If you really believe what OBL tells you, then I've got a bridge to show you.

To the contrary; the evidence is that our government's support of the Israeli government's occupation of Palestinian land was the primary motivation for the 9/11 attacks. According to the 9/11 commission:

"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission."

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

|4.7.06 @ 11:50AM|#

Look at Saddam. Why did this lunatic continue to defy the US when it was crystal clear where Bush was going to go with things? They don't call him Saddam Insane for nothing.

This guy got his kicks by thumbing his nose at us. Not because we did him wrong, but because he's that kind of lunatic.

Actually Saddam's behavior was completely rational if you assume the guy wanted to stay alive. Saddam ruled by terror alone, backing down to the US would have been a sign to his many internal and external enemies that he was weakening. Saddam was trapped - he was always weighing the threat of a US invasion vs the threat of a coup. Apparently right up until the end he was far more worried about a coup, at least US antagonism gave him some legitimacy in the eyes of jihadists and the like.
I like how John conflates opposition with Gulf War II to opposition to Gulf War I. Niece leap of logic there. If you remember John we won Gulf War I pretty handily and pretty much destroyed the Iraqi military, and you want to tell me that Iraq was more of a threat after that?

|4.7.06 @ 11:59AM|#

Kahn,

You might show the bridge to the Democrats in congress and the Bush White House. You'll find lotsa "money is no object" sentiment among both of em.

|4.7.06 @ 4:26PM|#

Aren't there violent separatists in Xinjiang province?

They sure do. Buddy-buddy with Al Qaida too, if the State Department can be believed. Although, to be fair most of them are protesting the movement of ethnic Han into Turkestan, which makes their international concerns somewhat limited.