[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[David Willson]

I thought Kevin's core argument was pretty obvious, but I'll restate it
here, for you, and so that Kevin can correct me if I have misunderstood
him.

There are more sorts of 'threat' than stand-and-fight armies.  One is
mercenary forces.  Another is guerilla forces.  Another is terrorists.

Kevin might have added, and so I will, that anyone that thought that
Iraq was going to give us a serious run in the business of all-out war,
is not a military genius. I don't think that anyone considered their
standing army as the 'threat'.  If it were, the Salon.com article would
be absolutely right.

We attacked Saddam for three reasons, as I understand it:
1- The man is a homocidal, if not genocidal, sociopath, and many, if not
most, of the people living under his regime
2- He does not abide the terms of the closure of the last war, thereby
inviting a resumption of military conflict.
3- He is a threat.  He cooperates with terrorists.  He may have WMD, and
shows intent to develop WMD, and does not cooperate fully with weapons
inspectors.  He tried to assassinate a former U.S. President. etc.

So, the core argument you ignored was that, because of the wide variety
of ways of hurting an enemy country, it is not necessary for Saddam
Hussein to be able to hold his capital against us in order for him to be
a threat.

2003-04-22 at 20:04, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 18:44, David Willson wrote:
> > You've entirely ignored Kevin's point, which remains valid, whichever
> > word you use, 'mercenary' or 'terrorist'.  
> 
> That's your interpretation - I didn't think Kevin had much of a point
> either. 
> 
> > Isn't it petty to natter away
> > at one mis-applied word, and ignore the valid core argument?
> 
> I didn't really feel that Kevin's core argument was worth addressing.
> Frankly, I couldn't find a coherent thread in it. When asked if he's
> "sure that Baghdad had to "fall" for meaningful change to take place in
> Iraq?" Kevin responds with "Yes, I do!" HUH? 
> 
> Besides, since part of the justification of this war is supposed to be
> "fighting terrorism" it makes me wonder when one of the proponents of
> the action doesn't seem to understand the distinction between a
> terrorist and a mercenary. 
> 
> Speaking of avoiding the core argument, it seems Kevin is pretty eager
> to sidestep the question: if the justification for going to war with
> Iraq is that they're a threat, how can we justify it when they've found
> no weapons of mass destruction, and the Iraqi army fell in less than a
> month? Where was this threat? 
> 
> Zonker
> 
> > On Tue, 2003-04-22 at 18:18, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> > > Kevin,
> > > 
> > > > > Perhaps--and it may depend what you mean by "right." It appears to mean,
> > > > > does it not, that Iraq was really not much of a military threat after
> > > > > all? Where was the imminent danger that our leaders made so much of in
> > > > 
> > > > In military terms, there are mercenaries and there are armies, which has
> > > > the greater threat?  Depends in where and when it is used.  Look what 19
> > > > mercenaries did on 9/11!  The threat is real no matter where or the
> > > > numbers that are threatening us.  A person with a 22 is still as scarey
> > > > as one with a .45 cal.
> > > 
> > > Mercenaries get paid, Kevin. They do it for the *money* -- the idiots on
> > > 9/11 were terrorists. Thought you would have picked up on that
> > > distinction by now. 
> > > 
> > > Zonker
> > > -- 
> > > Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
> > > jzb at dissociatedpress.net
> > > Aim: zonkerjoe
> > > http://www.dissociatedpress.net
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CLUE-Talk mailing list
> > > CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> > > http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > CLUE-Talk mailing list
> > CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> > http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> -- 
> Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier
> jzb at dissociatedpress.net
> Aim: zonkerjoe
> http://www.dissociatedpress.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CLUE-Talk mailing list
> CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk