OT - A Warmonger Explains War to a Peacenik

[NoMyths]

Email I got...does a nice job of addressing some of the concerns of the pro-diplomacy set. This is really similar to many of the conversations I've heard and had.

A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK - By Anonymous

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate security council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to.

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Quaida. Osama BinLaden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq.

PN: He did?
WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Quaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point.

PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe consequences." If we do not act, the security council will become an irrelevant debating society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: But there is a chance that some have not degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into
a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq because we cannot allow the inspections to drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying, deceiving, and denying for over ten years, and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the terrorists to change the way we live. Once we do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq because the world has called on Saddam Hussein to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?
WM: In which case, we have an obligation to ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.
WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

PN: I give up!

[sachmo71]

This one is always my favorite...

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move there. Or maybe France, with all the other cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt about that.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by sachmo71
This one is always my favorite...

And the way it inevitably makes its way into EVERY war discussion is incredible.

[daedalus]

Heh.

[CamEdwards]

there's just something about the phrase surrender monkeys.

[McSweeny]

that was an enjoyable read

[CamEdwards]

I actually just took the time to read that. I can now say that if that's what a warmonger sounds like, I'm pleased to be able to honestly tell my wife I'm not one. It's a rather simplistic take, isn't it?

[NoMyths]

Not sure, Cam. I really haven't heard better answers to those questions yet.

[CamEdwards]

If I have time tonight (I rented Ghost Ship and I plan on watching that with my wife) I'll give it a shot. Otherwise it'll most likely be Sunday. But if it's better answers you want, it's better answers you'll get. You'll also get A Peacenik Explains to a Warmonger as an added bonus.

[NoMyths]

Sounds great, Cam -- I'm always interested in getting well-thought out arguments from both sides. Looking forward to it!

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
If I have time tonight (I rented Ghost Ship and I plan on watching that with my wife) I'll give it a shot. Otherwise it'll most likely be Sunday. But if it's better answers you want, it's better answers you'll get. You'll also get A Peacenik Explains to a Warmonger as an added bonus.

You're like hollywood. Before the first one is out you're already planning the sequel!

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by NoMyths
Not sure, Cam. I really haven't heard better answers to those questions yet.

"HOW WILL KEEPING SADDAM HUSSEIN IN POWER PROMOTE PEACE AND JUSTICE?"

Seriously...to all those for peace...how does it feel to see people hung for waving at coaclition troops? tortured for losing sporting events, etc.?

[Maple Leafs]

Wow... that peacenik really did seem to handily win that debate with the fictional straw man character. I'm convinced!

[KWhit]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
"HOW WILL KEEPING SADDAM HUSSEIN IN POWER PROMOTE PEACE AND JUSTICE?"

One way to answer that badly worded and unfair question:

If we keep Saddam in power, that means will not have to go to war with Iraq which has already caused many of our allies to distrust us. Additionally, this war has confirmed in the minds of thousands of Arabs that we are on a crusade to wipe them out, creating more hatred of America and more danger of terrorism.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by rexalllsc


Seriously...to all those for peace...how does it feel to see people hung for waving at coaclition troops? tortured for losing sporting events, etc.?

Dola - you added this part.


Saddam sucks. I will be glad when he is dead. However, we are NOT going to war with Iraq to "liberate" these people, no matter what the administration says. We're going to war to protect our security. I personally believe our security would best be served by leaving well enough alone and staying out of this war (unless Bush has some seriously damning evidence that he hasn't shared with the public - which is very possible).

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by KWhit
One way to answer that badly worded and unfair question:

If we keep Saddam in power, that means will not have to go to war with Iraq which has already caused many of our allies to distrust us. Additionally, this war has confirmed in the minds of thousands of Arabs that we are on a crusade to wipe them out, creating more hatred of America and more danger of terrorism.

It's from the mp3 posted the other day...so it was kind of a joke.

PS - Who cares if the allies distrust us? We distrust them, too. Ever think that they have just as much reason NOT to go into war as we do TO go into war?

I don't like how the administration handled the process, but I believe in the war. I honestly wouldn't put it past Saddam to help terrorist orgs gain WMD, even if he wouldn't or couldn't use them.

[MJ4H]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Wow... that peacenik really did seem to handily win that debate with the fictional straw man character. I'm convinced!

Exactly. Ive seen this thing on just about every board I visit now and everyone of them i accompanied by the anti-war crowd being very proud of themselves for having "defeated" all the pro-war arguments by running this poor 6th grader into the ground. If I wasnt busy trying to cram a pizza through my swollen throat (3rd case of strep throat already this year ) I would post the very lengthy reply I posted on the other boards. Maybe later. Hope someone else will take care of it this time though.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by MattJones4Heisman
Exactly. Ive seen this thing on just about every board I visit now and everyone of them i accompanied by the anti-war crowd being very proud of themselves for having "defeated" all the pro-war arguments by running this poor 6th grader into the ground. If I wasnt busy trying to cram a pizza through my swollen throat (3rd case of strep throat already this year ) I would post the very lengthy reply I posted on the other boards. Maybe later. Hope someone else will take care of it this time though.

And this is unlike the pro-war crowd posting the mp3 of a debate with a anti-war protestor who had no clue? Both sides play to strawmen - read albionmoonlight's thread about this.

[AgPete]

Great read NoMyths!

I love this part:

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into
a sea of fire.
WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

Thanks for posting that. I wish I could receive some quality spam mail like that every once in a while.

[Bee]

Originally posted by rexalllsc

Seriously...to all those for peace...

I assume this means you are against peace?

[EagleFan]

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?

We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.

None of these countries were mandated to disarm as a peace accord following a war they initiated.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.

They can't reach us, but can easily reach other countries around them. They have already proven they had violated having a missile that can fire over 150 kilometers, just the first of many other violations.

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

We sold conventional weapons to Iraq. What kind of question is the first? Couldn't any one of us win the lottery tommorrow? Iraq's leader has gone on the record about his desire to destory America in any way possible.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?

Green light? So Saddam checks with our ambassador before any military moves. Hell, that should make this a really easy war, let's send an ambassador to Iraq again.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?

The point was to break up his terrorist group.

PN: He did? (Powell's arguements)

The only arguement needed is that he was supposed to disarm. He did not disarm, whic is shown by him suddenly finding weapons to destroy prior to the dealine like he is co-operating. Please let me know what happened to the tons of chemical and biological agents that are not accounted for and the weapons that were supposed to be detroyed yet there is no evidence produced by Iraq to show where and how.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

There is no evidence of the disposal of these weapons. There is plenty evidence of their existence, they did exist and most likely still do. Iraq is mandated to destroy the weapons and show the proof of such. Without that proof there can only be one assumption, that they still exist. To clarify, your neighbor pulls a gun on you as you leave your house. You retreat back into the house. You never see him get rid of the gun but bh etells you to come out, he got rid of it. Do you walk outside at that point?

PN: So what is the point?

There are several points. Saddam hate the USA. Saddam loves money and power and has no sense of decency like you or I (he is brutal). Terrorists hate the USA and some have financial backing. It doesn't take much of a detective to know what that combination can bring.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

In that case we have to act as a sovereign nation to defend what is in our best interests.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

Britain is the main one, but backed by several others like Spain, Italy, all of the new European countries, etc...

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.

Nope, just like here in the United States it is a divided opinion. It's just the vocal anti-war demonstraters that get the press.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?

With a 70% approval of the war rating, that sounds like a majority.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-

You have Supreme Court mistaken for Electoral College. But this shows your true stance here. If it were your candidate you obviously wouldn't be as concerned with the war.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?

If you do not support the country you are, hence the definition of patriotic and unpatriotic.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?

I said already, stop smoking that pot and you'll be able to remember these things a little better.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.

The inspectors aren;t there to play hide and seek. They are there to verify what is supposed to be proof the weapons have been detroyed. This is proof that had not been shown. Unless the Iraqi soldiers had all those chem suits sitting around for some sort of military fashion show, then it's quite obvious of the existence of such weapons.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

No, we didn't sell them these weapons, another answer I already stated, I told you that pot would go to your head.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.

But the latest factory that was found had evidence that the last time certain chemicals were produced was 5 years ago. My math shows that 5 is less than 10.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into
a sea of fire.

North Korea is not mandated to have diarmed because of invading a neighbor a decade ago.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?

Because delays just allow him more time to produce weapons and toy with the UN. It's a game to him that he enjoys playing, especially when the UN has not shown him any reason to think they really mean business. Do you think that it was a coincidence that the weapons that he recently pulled out of thin air to detroy happened after the troop buildup when he saw how serious the US was. Just another ploy hoping to get the UN to slow things down again.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.

Not nearly as much as the cost of lives if we do nothing, both in Iraw and the potential loss of life of him getting into bed with a terrorist group.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?

Radical groups are already ignited against us. Does 9/11 ring a bell?

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?

No, when have you changed anything because of the security alert. Of course the government could do nothing and not wan us if they know wof a potential threat, that would go over well with the masses. Then you could demonstrate about how the government knew but did nothing and never let us know.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

Wow, that stuff has really messed up your brain. I'm not about to answer the same question 3 times.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?

That's like the age old question of 'if your friends asked you to jump off a bridge'. The coalition has more nations than in 1991, more backing and more support by Arab countries.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?

We have, we went through proper channels and now it's time to act.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?

Again, the proper channels were taken.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?

See above.

PN: In which case? (veto)

We have an obligation to protect our interests. Why is the debate not about France only wanting to protect their oil interest?

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?

See above.

PN: That makes no sense.
Stop toking and it might start to. Let's make this really easy. Your child doesn't doesn;t listen to you. You tell him, or her, to stop doing what they are doing. He, or she, stops, for a little while, and starts again. Now if you don't respond the same way again and instead let him, or her, continue until they have done something a little worse before stopping them. What type of behavior pattern have we started? The mindset of I'll do as much as I can until I get my hand slapped. Later I'll be able to get away with a little more. Eventually I'll get my way all the time.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by rexalllsc
It's from the mp3 posted the other day...so it was kind of a joke.

PS - Who cares if the allies distrust us? We distrust them, too. Ever think that they have just as much reason NOT to go into war as we do TO go into war?

I don't like how the administration handled the process, but I believe in the war. I honestly wouldn't put it past Saddam to help terrorist orgs gain WMD, even if he wouldn't or couldn't use them.

Yeah, I knew where the question came from. I'm glad to see that you weren't 100% serious with the question, because it isn't a fair one.

And you're right about French and Russian motives. I am well aware that they are only opposing us because it serves their current interests.

I am very barely in favor of this war, and I agree that the administration has handles it poorly. I am just afraid that we're doing more harm to our security than good. The problem is that even if the war goes very very well, we won't realize the full consequences of the war for years as far as Middle East resentment and hatred go. Hell, the seeds of Osama's hatred toward us came from Gulf War I and the towers were attacked a decade later. I'm afraid we might be creating a bunch more Osamas.

[MJ4H]

Originally posted by John Galt
And this is unlike the pro-war crowd posting the mp3 of a debate with a anti-war protestor who had no clue? Both sides play to strawmen - read albionmoonlight's thread about this.

No, its not unlike it. In fact its exactly as worthless. I did read it. Thanks EagleFan, you saved me a lot of typing / copy/pasting.

[CamEdwards]

EagleFan stole my thunder, but here's my reply anyway. Nice job, btw, EagleFan.
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK - By Anonymous

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441, one of 18 resolutions demanding Iraq disarm after the first Gulf War.
PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: And some of them also face action, albeit not military action. As someone else pointed out, none of those countries were ordered to disarm based on their invasion of a sovereign country.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: I don’t know what you’re talking about. I never mentioned a mushroom cloud.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
WM: You thought wrong. Kuwait is an ally, and has been attacked by a missile that is in violation of the 18 resolutions. Israel is also within range, as is Turkey.

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM: Not all countries could sell chemical or biological weapons, because not all countries possess chemical and biological weapons. The United States, for instance, has been destroying it’s chemical and biological weapons stocks over the past several years, and is keeping full and complete records to show how, when, and where the destruction of those weapons took place. As for the weapons sold to Iraq in the 80’s, we sold Iraq no chemical or biological weapons. What we did do was sell Iraq dual use items, that could have both a scientific and military purpose.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: Yes. It was all a part of “normalized relations” with Iraq, which is what people like yourself are pushing for in place of sanctions and military action for non-compliance.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Saddam Hussein says Gillespie gave him the green light. We all know his track record of honesty.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him?
WM: What about Osama bin Laden. If you’re searching for a link between Iraq and bin Laden, I might point out that according to various mainstream media organizations, Al Queda and several other terrorist organizations are operating in Iraq, fighting coalition forces.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: I don’t know how we started talking about the tape, but it’s also the one where he urges his followers to defend Iraq and destroy Americans.

PN: He did?
WM: Yes.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: Huh?

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: what are you talking about?

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: Are you talking about Colin Powell’s evidence presented to the United Nations?

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?
WM: Not all of it. Hans Blix made statements that both sides took as gestures of support for their cause. For instance, he said that it was his belief that only the threat of armed force could make Hussein cooperate.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: Not at this point. Then again, if Iraq truly wanted the sanctions lifted, all they would have to do is present credible evidence that the chemical and biological weapons it was known to possess had been destroyed sometime between 1992 and 2003. They haven’t done so.

PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are disarming Iraq, both from the standpoint of the United Nations and from the perspective of national security.
PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: It is A point, not the main point.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: It didn’t.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
WM: Actually, their parliament voted to allow us access to their country. The number of people abstaining forced the vote to be rendered meaningless, but recently another vote was passed allowing overflight rights for our planes.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: So? A majority of Americans would like to see abortion become illegal. Should we follow public opinion polls on that matter? The public, to a large extent, is uninformed.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
WM: Is this Michael Moore? Would things be any different if Gore were president? It would still have been the Supreme Court that made the decision. If you’re going to suggest everything the President does is illegal because the Supreme Court made the final decision as to the validity of the election, then we’d be in a world of hurt. We would have had four years of no president.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: If you call for the killing of American soldiers you are not patriotic. If you call for soldiers to shoot their superior officers you are not patriotic. If you decide that the best way to end this war is by shutting down the economy, you are not patriotic. Instead, you are an asshat.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: Are you JohnGalt? Haven’t we been over this before? To disarm Iraq as was required by 18 UN resolutions passed since the end of the Gulf War, including resolution 1441. In addition, an added bonus if you will, we will also free Iraqi civilians who have been terrorized by this regime for more than two decades.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: No. The weapons he manufactured. We never sold them chemical and biological weapons.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: Doubtful, and if he’s still making more (and again, if he’s not, why hasn’t he turned over the records that were kept regarding the destruction of the weapons we know he had at the end of the Gulf War?) then he could have a fresh supply. If properly stored, the chemical agents could have a long shelf life.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: As long as he refuses to comply, when given 12 years to do so, and a deadline of December 2002 with the warning of “serious consequences” for non compliance, then yes, we must invade.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into
a sea of fire.
WM: They’re under no UN order to disarm, and they have not been running afoul of UN resolutions demanding their disarmament for the past 12 years.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: We tried diplomacy. They rejected it.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Security for the United States and freedom for 25 million people. Can YOU put a price on saving innocent lives? It comes to 320 dollars per Iraqi. I’m willing to pay 320 dollars to give an Iraqi his or her freedom. Are you?

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Anti-American sentiment has been common in the Middle East for more than two decades. George Bush could French kiss Yassar Arafat and it would inflame anti-Americanism.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: To disarm Iraq as was required by 18 UN resolutions passed since the end of the Gulf War, including resolution 1441. In addition, an added bonus if you will, we will also free Iraqi civilians who have been terrorized by this regime for more than two decades.


PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: We have listened. I also notice none of them have been willing to find that peaceful solution to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN Resolutions.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: Up to the point that the actions of the United Nations threatens the security of America, we should listen.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: Up to the point that the actions of the Security Council threaten the security of America, we should listen. The Security Council voted unanimously back in November to give Hussein a deadline of December 2002 to comply. He failed to do so. We listened.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: see above.

PN: In which case?
WM: We protect our nation, and we force compliance.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: The last vote from the Security Council gave Iraq one FINAL chance to comply or face serious consequences. Considering they’re already under UN imposed sanctions, everyone knows what those serious consequences are. That vote passed unanimously. If other countries have since changed their mind, maybe you should ask them why they no longer support their previous 18 resolutions, instead of asking why America should protect it’s national interest AND disarm Iraq according to Resolution 1441.
PN: That makes no sense.
WM: Of course not. What makes sense is bringing knives to a peace rally, holding a “die-in” to protest the deaths of Iraqi civilians while civilians in Iraq cheer our troops (at risk of death), calling for a million Mogadishus on our armed services, carrying placards denouncing capitalism at an anti-war protest, sending human shields to Iraq and then ignoring them when they speak in support of military action, never talking to Iraqi refugees about life under Sadddam and never ONCE demanding that Iraq comply with the UN Resolutions to disarm, never ONCE denouncing Saddam’s reign of terror. You people will denounce the military using dolphins to search for mines, but you can’t simply say that Saddam is an evil man who’s killed more civilians than we could possibly kill in this conflict? Yep… of course YOU’RE the sensible ones.
PN: I give up!

[NoMyths]

X(y).......X
^
||
||

It would also make the post read better if you cut out the questions that obviously wouldn't have been asked if their subjects hadn't been mentioned (like the "shack" stuff). The bad part about both yours and EagleFan's posts is that you're still too anxious to set up the straw man and make your (fictious) debate partner speak in non-sequiters. Take it a bit more seriously and I'll read with interest and enthusiasm. As is you're avoiding the real issues and speaking in "define the word 'it'" language.

Or in other words: needs another revision or two before it's radio-ready.
You strike me as someone who can make a stronger argument than this one -- please do so. I'm willing to be convinced.

[NoMyths]

dola...

I should also mention that I appreciate the both of you (and everyone else in this thread) taking the time to consider and respond to the post.

[tucker342]

NoMyths,

that was a great read. I wish I got spam like that.

[SFL Cat]

Originally posted by KWhit
One way to answer that badly worded and unfair question:

If we keep Saddam in power, that means will not have to go to war with Iraq which has already caused many of our allies to distrust us. Additionally, this war has confirmed in the minds of thousands of Arabs that we are on a crusade to wipe them out, creating more hatred of America and more danger of terrorism.

First of all, it is our presence in the Middle East to "contain" Saddam (i.e. no fly zones) that has led directly to the Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11.

OBL has said that our continued military presence in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (again to contain Saddam and maintain the no fly zones) that led him to launch his attacks against the American embassies, the U.S.S. Coles, the first WTC attack, and ultimately 9/11. So on all fronts containment of Saddam has been a dismal failure.

If we remove Saddam, we lessen the chance that WMD will fall into terrorist hands (although Saddam is a secular ruler, he does pay mouth service to Islam, and does have ties to terrorists groups -- the Hezbullah suicide bombers in Israel for one), we install a more democratic government (as much as can be possible in a ME Arab country) which in turn will put more pressure on the mullahs in Iran -- who are battling against a large segment of their population that wants a more democratic form of government and better ties with the west. In addition we can withdraw from Saudi Arabia -- which will probably turn the attention of terrorists organizations to the corrupt Royal family, whom the U.S. has been accused of keeping propped up and in power. So one way, or another...real reforms will have to take place in Saudi Arabia.

It will also send a message to ALL outlaw regimes that we do have the resolve to take them out if they screw with us or support organizations that screw with us (notice North Korea, who was making a lot of noise about nukes and missiles in the days leading up to the war, is now strangely quiet. We're showing the world that we will use that big stick that Teddy Roosevelt said we should carry ("speak softly, but carry a big stick.")

[Dutch]

No Myths,

You sit here and hope for intelligent debate over this from Cam Edwards and all you can do is post somebody else's e-mail?

Let's hear you spit something, brother.

[CamEdwards]

NoMyths,

You set up the straw man. I simply responded to the questions that were already there. It's not my fault if I won the argument halfway through the script.

[EagleFan]

Yeah, what Cam said.

NoMyths, to quote your endorsement of your initial post... "does a nice job of addressing some of the concerns of the pro-diplomacy set. This is really similar to many of the conversations I've heard and had" Why is that straw man okay up there but when the tables are turned it's a different story?

There's one clear arguement. There has been 12 years for diplomacy which has failed. He was given one last chance to show the proof of the destruction of the weapons and failed to do so. He now has to face the consequences of his actions.

Everyone that is rallying for peace keeps making one bad assumption. We're not dealing with a normal sane human being, we're dealing with an inhumane madman. If there was a problem between you and I (both sane rational people), then I can guarantee a peaceful solution. This is like saying the police shouldn't have arrested Charles Manson, but instead should have searched for a peaceful diplomatic solution.

I'll restate what I said before. Do I want war? Hell no. Do I want the world safer for my daughter when she grows up? Hell yes. This won't inflame the radicals anymore than they already are against us. They will hate us no matter what we do, unless we have a full and complete conversion to Islam.

[NoMyths]

Dutch: I'm not really interested in tossing out political solutions when I cannot have all of the information I'd need to do so. I'm really kind of hoping that someone will find the right argument to convince me, but most of what I've seen from the pro-war side has been anger and violence in word and deed. I understand that people get hot under the collar from time to time (lord knows I have and do), but there's also a time for respectful debate and discussion.
Or, to cut to the chase: forget me. I'm just the messenger.

Cam: I didn't set any straw man up -- I just posted the email I received and said that it did "a nice job of addressing some of the concerns of the pro-diplomacy set." I'm sorry that my meaning was evidently unclear in the previous email; it's not a debate that's about "winning" so much as it is about finding the most just solution to this situation, instead of pretending that either side has found the right one yet. They haven't found it because nobody is willing to give any ground.
Let me be more specific in my comments; new stuff is in italics.

---

PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq?
WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of security council resolution 1441, one of 18 resolutions demanding Iraq disarm after the first Gulf War.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq.
WM: And some of them also face action, albeit not military action. As someone else pointed out, none of those countries were ordered to disarm based on their invasion of a sovereign country.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.
WM: I don’t know what you’re talking about. I never mentioned a mushroom cloud.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons.
WM: You thought wrong. Kuwait is an ally, and has been attacked by a missile that is in violation of the 18 resolutions. Israel is also within range, as is Turkey.

PN: If those are the three allies who are within range of weapons that Iraq has been proven to possess, why have two of them chosen to take little to no action in this war? Israel is staying out of it, and Turkey has been problematic with the administration from the get-go. If Saddam poses such a clear threat, why don't they (or anyone else in the region) seem very concerned?

PN: But coundn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?
WM:
1) Not all countries could sell chemical or biological weapons, because not all countries possess chemical and biological weapons.
["Virtually" = "if they had the means to produce or import"]

2) The United States, for instance, has been destroying it’s chemical and biological weapons stocks over the past several years, and is keeping full and complete records to show how, when, and where the destruction of those weapons took place.
PN: That's great as far as the destruction goes...but what about the sale of such stocks to other countries for 'scientific and/or military purposes'?

3) As for the weapons sold to Iraq in the 80’s, we sold Iraq no chemical or biological weapons. What we did do was sell Iraq dual use items, that could have both a scientific and military purpose.
PN: i.e. 'Though I have a cruise missile, it is not really a weapon. Rather, since I can take it apart to learn how the machine operates--which could benefit our non-military industries--it is really just a scientific tool.'
Also: any chance you could track down the info on what those "dual-use items" were?)

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?
WM: Yes. It was all a part of “normalized relations” with Iraq, which is what people like yourself are pushing for in place of sanctions and military action for non-compliance.
[The speaker hasn't "pushed for" anything yet...claiming he/she is doing so signals to your readers that you aren't seriously considering the discussion that is taking place.]

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Gillespie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait?
WM: Saddam Hussein says Gillespie gave him the green light. We all know his track record of honesty.
PN: But about this "pre-emptive first strike" business -- isn't there a very real danger that setting a first-strike precedent could dangerously destabilize world security by turning situations like India/Pakistan into a dangerous game of who blinks first?

PN: Isn't invading Iraq to kill or capture Saddam Hussein much like invading Afghanistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden? [my edit]
WM: What about Osama bin Laden[?] If you’re searching for a link between Iraq and bin Laden, I might point out that according to various mainstream media organizations, Al Queda and several other terrorist organizations are operating in Iraq, fighting coalition forces.
PN: Links please. And also, isn't the fact that we invaded Iraq to kill or capture bin Laden and have thus far failed to do so some cause for concern considering we're attempting a similar action against a far more prepared government?

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?
WM: I don’t know how we started talking about the tape, but it’s also the one where he urges his followers to defend Iraq and destroy Americans.
PN: Okay, but isn't it also the tape where he labels Saddam a secular infidel? After all, we can understand why he'd urge his followers to defend Iraq -- more of his enemies will in theory be killed. But to claim that he is a supporter of Saddam Hussein is to say that the Pope is a fan of George W. Bush.

PN: He did?
WM: Yes.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
WM: Huh?

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
WM: what are you talking about?

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?
WM: Are you talking about Colin Powell’s evidence presented to the United Nations?
[All moved to where it actually makes sense. For shame.]

PN: Wasn't Colin Powell's evidence presented to the United Nations contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix? [my edit]
WM: Not all of it. Hans Blix made statements that both sides took as gestures of support for their cause. For instance, he said that it was his belief that only the threat of armed force could make Hussein cooperate.
PN:
1) What about the forged documents indicating that Iraq had tried to import uranium, a key point in both Powell's presentation and the State of the Union speech?
2) What about the "al Qaeda poison factory" that turned out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition?
3) Didn't the other piece of supporting evidence, a British Intelligence report, turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper?
4) Didn't the entirety of the reports of mobile weapons turn out to be artistic renderings?
X) Interesting quote. Link please.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
WM: Not at this point. Then again, if Iraq truly wanted the sanctions lifted, all they would have to do is present credible evidence that the chemical and biological weapons it was known to possess had been destroyed sometime between 1992 and 2003. They haven’t done so.

PN: So what is the point?
WM: The main point is that we are disarming Iraq, both from the standpoint of the United Nations and from the perspective of national security.
PN:
1) Isn't the standpoint of the United Nations that we shouldn't be invading Iraq?
2) Being that 50% of Iraq's population is under the age of 15, isn't there a very serious concern that we are actually "arming" a generation of children with all of the images and terror that they'll need to threaten national security if some of them come looking for revenge (as happens, historically) after having their country invaded, their cities destroyed, and their families and friends killed?

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the security council?
WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.
WM: It is A point, not the main point.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?
WM: It didn’t.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?
WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters.
(We should probably define "coalition of the willing," whatever that means. How about direct military aid?)

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars.
WM: Actually, their parliament voted to allow us access to their country. The number of people abstaining forced the vote to be rendered meaningless, but recently another vote was passed allowing overflight rights for our planes.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war.
WM: So? A majority of Americans would like to see abortion become illegal. Should we follow public opinion polls on that matter? The public, to a large extent, is uninformed.
PN: If we agree that public opinion in all those countries is against war, what seem to be the best reasons for why that is the case?

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important?
WM: Yes.

PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C...-
WM: Is this Michael Moore? Would things be any different if Gore were president? It would still have been the Supreme Court that made the decision. If you’re going to suggest everything the President does is illegal because the Supreme Court made the final decision as to the validity of the election, then we’d be in a world of hurt. We would have had four years of no president.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic?
WM: If you call for the killing of American soldiers you are not patriotic. If you call for soldiers to shoot their superior officers you are not patriotic. If you decide that the best way to end this war is by shutting down the economy, you are not patriotic. Instead, you are an asshat.
PN: What about the hundreds of other ways people choose not to support the decisions of the President? Sending a letter to a newspaper? Marching in a permitted location? Burning the flag? Wouldn't you agree that it's silly to consider someone unpatriotic for lawfully exercising their right to express their opinion (from inarticulate frustration to concrete proposals), especially considering that they're probably interested in what's best for America (as we should assume most Americans are)?

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: Are you JohnGalt? Haven’t we been over this before? To disarm Iraq as was required by 18 UN resolutions passed since the end of the Gulf War, including resolution 1441. In addition, an added bonus if you will, we will also free Iraqi civilians who have been terrorized by this regime for more than two decades.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons.
WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?
WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?
WM: No. The weapons he manufactured. We never sold them chemical and biological weapons.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical weapons would degrade to an unusable state over ten years.
WM: Doubtful, and if he’s still making more (and again, if he’s not, why hasn’t he turned over the records that were kept regarding the destruction of the weapons we know he had at the end of the Gulf War?) then he could have a fresh supply. If properly stored, the chemical agents could have a long shelf life.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance that such weapons exist, we must invade?
WM: As long as he refuses to comply, when given 12 years to do so, and a deadline of December 2002 with the warning of “serious consequences” for non compliance, then yes, we must invade.
PN: Why is "12 years" the issue? Why didn't our goverment, with many of the same legislators at work, consider this a necessary war 2 years ago? Or four? Or at any point during that time?

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons, AND long range missiles that can reach the west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into
a sea of fire.
WM: They’re under no UN order to disarm, and they have not been running afoul of UN resolutions demanding their disarmament for the past 12 years.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of using diplomacy?
WM: We tried diplomacy. They rejected it.
PN: This reminds me of the "we tried peace" element in the pro-war crowd...as if peace was something you try, find out doesn't work like you wanted, and then discard until you get your way. Isn't that something we learn before grade school?

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of billions.
WM: Security for the United States and freedom for 25 million people. Can YOU put a price on saving innocent lives? It comes to 320 dollars per Iraqi. I’m willing to pay 320 dollars to give an Iraqi his or her freedom. Are you?
(Refers to inspections, which was excised in your version)

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, and decrease our security?
WM: Anti-American sentiment has been common in the Middle East for more than two decades. George Bush could French kiss Yassar Arafat and it would inflame anti-Americanism.
PN: (Cute, but avoids the issue). Wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq further ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us, decreasing our security to a point where the benefits of ensuring that Iraq has no WMD don't outweigh the costs in terms of future terror attacks and related disasters?

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts, and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way we live?
WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.
PN: This is crucially tied into the question of Iraq. Doesn't the perception by many Americans (and people world-wide) that these developments in the War on Terror are eroding our civil liberties concern you?

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?
WM: To disarm Iraq as was required by 18 UN resolutions passed since the end of the Gulf War, including resolution 1441. In addition, an added bonus if you will, we will also free Iraqi civilians who have been terrorized by this regime for more than two decades.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to do something, such as find a peaceful solution, we would have an obligation to listen?
WM: We have listened. I also notice none of them have been willing to find that peaceful solution to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN Resolutions.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the United Nations?
WM: Up to the point that the actions of the United Nations threatens the security of America, we should listen.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the Security Council?
WM: Up to the point that the actions of the Security Council threaten the security of America, we should listen. The Security Council voted unanimously back in November to give Hussein a deadline of December 2002 to comply. He failed to do so. We listened.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the majority of the Security Council?
WM: see above.

PN: In which case?
WM: We protect our nation, and we force compliance.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council does not support us at all?
WM: The last vote from the Security Council gave Iraq one FINAL chance to comply or face serious consequences. Considering they’re already under UN imposed sanctions, everyone knows what those serious consequences are. That vote passed unanimously. If other countries have since changed their mind, maybe you should ask them why they no longer support their previous 18 resolutions, instead of asking why America should protect it’s national interest AND disarm Iraq according to Resolution 1441.

PN: That makes no sense.
WM: Of course not. What makes sense is bringing knives to a peace rally, holding a “die-in” to protest the deaths of Iraqi civilians while civilians in Iraq cheer our troops (at risk of death), calling for a million Mogadishus on our armed services, carrying placards denouncing capitalism at an anti-war protest, sending human shields to Iraq and then ignoring them when they speak in support of military action, never talking to Iraqi refugees about life under Sadddam and never ONCE demanding that Iraq comply with the UN Resolutions to disarm, never ONCE denouncing Saddam’s reign of terror. You people will denounce the military using dolphins to search for mines, but you can’t simply say that Saddam is an evil man who’s killed more civilians than we could possibly kill in this conflict? Yep… of course YOU’RE the sensible ones.
PN: I give up!
PN: "You people". Hmm. Can't say that I've ever brought knives to a peace rally, held a “die-in” to protest the deaths of Iraqi civilians while civilians in Iraq cheer our troops (at risk of death), called for a million Mogadishus on our armed services, carried placards denouncing capitalism at an anti-war protest, sent human shields to Iraq and then ignored them when they speak in support of military action, protested the use of dolphins to search for mines. I've never talked to an Iraqi refugee, but I've read and listened to their stories when I've come across them. I never demanded that Iraq comply with the UN Resolutions to disarm, but I hoped that they would, as I hoped our government would find a way to solve the problem in an effective, non-military way. Saddam is an evil man who’s killed more civilians than we could possibly kill in this conflict. Many more will die because of his actions and our own.
When Jesus said love your enemies, I don't think he meant kill them. To my mind the reason we've not found a better solution is because the better solutions require so much more effort and brilliance to find. Do I believe our current administration has found the best solution to resolve this situation? Not really, but now it's a moot point -- I may be against the reasons behind the war, but I want it to be concluded as quickly and justly as possible, with as little loss of life as possible. But knowing what I know of history and current events, I also know that we've made some tragic missteps already in our War on Terror, and if we continue to do so it can only come back to haunt us.
Or, in other words: we can't give up on continuing to search for the just solutions to our national security concerns. I've been thinking a lot lately about how Jesus said we should love our enemies, and how hard that is to do. He cannot have meant kill them.

Edit: Edited for formatting errors and the fact that I can't get the strikethrough code to work embedded with others for some reason. Alas.

[NoMyths]

dola...

Originally posted by EagleFan
NoMyths, to quote your endorsement of your initial post... "does a nice job of addressing some of the concerns of the pro-diplomacy set. This is really similar to many of the conversations I've heard and had" Why is that straw man okay up there but when the tables are turned it's a different story?

That's not me setting up a straw man argument, it's me telling you why I decided to post an email I received. I think it does do a nice job of showing the kinds of questions that the pro-diplomacy set asks, as I said. The WM responses of course will vary, and I'm glad that you and Cam took the time to respond (when you did so seriously) with some so that we could fill out the argument a bit more. I'm after the best argument here for why we should or shouldn't go to war, I suppose, although when I posted the email I didn't realize that's what I would become interested in.

Everyone that is rallying for peace keeps making one bad assumption. We're not dealing with a normal sane human being, we're dealing with an inhumane madman. If there was a problem between you and I (both sane rational people), then I can guarantee a peaceful solution. This is like saying the police shouldn't have arrested Charles Manson, but instead should have searched for a peaceful diplomatic solution.

I consider Hussein to be an inhumane madman. I still think that our best minds could come up with a better solution if they had all the available information. Your analogy doesn't quite fit -- after all, arresting Manson was a peaceful solution (they didn't shoot him or execute him, after all). Rather, this is like saying the government shouldn't have gotten involved in Vietnam, but instead should have searched for a peaceful diplomatic solution.

Edit: Edited to properly credit dolapost. Alas!

[detroit_fan]

Hey MattJones did you see the NECKED peace protesters in town a couple of weeks ago?