Really good debate on the Iraq War

[schmosef]

Scott Ritter vs. Christopher Hitchens

http://homepage.mac.com/musichall/podcasts/podcast050106-190948.mp4

Boths sides made some very good points.

Quite thought provoking.

[Dr Mordrid]

I lost all respect for Scott Ritter when he sold his soul to Saddam, literally.

Dr. Mordrid

[schmosef]

Did you actually listen to the debate?

It's funny that I'm siding with Hitchens on this issue because he's rabidly anti-Israel. He's only recently a right winger though. 9-11 converted him from his previous leftist stance.

What I would say about the debate is that some very good points were made on both sides. Neither side clearly won though. I don't think that the debate would have swayed someone who was already decided on the issue; it would have afforded them some sharper spurs with which to dig in their heels though. Someone who was undecided on the War would probably be very confused coming out of the debate. They'd have to make a personal judgement call on the merits of both sides.

[Dr Mordrid]

IMO the biggest arguement for being in both Iraq and Afghanistan, aside from all the other reasons, is that it puts us on both sides of Iran. Pincer maneuver.

Dr. Mordrid

[schmosef]

ok, well... I disagree with the idea that that is a good justification for War in Iraq... And I'm sure that Brian (or someone else who is also more traditionally left/pacifist) will have something more erudite than me to say about it...

[Dr Mordrid]

Like it or not from the practical standpoint it's true, and you almost have to wonder if setting this up weren't planned from the get-go. In war you usually have two options: a single point of attack or the pincer maneuver. A soldier would take the latter every time as it ups your odds of sucess.

I haven't even been to the US War College and to me it's an obvious way to "evlove" things in the middle east.

Dr. Mordrid

[Nowhere]

You shoukld hope that's not the case - it would almost give Iran a bit of moral stand (not saying here that it would "clean them" automagically from other things...which BTW would be the case with many (mostly Arab...) countries)

[schmosef]

What I would say is that the US administration did a bad job of selling the war to the American people.

They took a very complex issue and over simplified it by focusing on a few easily digestible, easily sellable issues. That strategy worked in terms of getting US popular support but when those simpler issues ended up not panning out the justification for the War was left without a strong foundation.

Mentioning the complex issues now seems like smarmy back-pedalling--not honest elaboration.

Fundamentally though, an important point that I got out of that debate was it was almost inevitable that Saddam was going to have to be dealt with one day and, accepting that, it's better for the Americans to have chosen the time and place for that instead of the other way around.

[schmosef]

Like it or not from the practical standpoint it's true, and you almost have to wonder if setting this up weren't planned from the get-go. In war you usually have two options: a single point of attack or the pincer maneuver. A soldier would take the latter every time as it ups your odds of sucess.

I haven't even been to the US War College and to me it's an obvious way to "evlove" things in the middle east.

Dr. Mordrid

Being in a better position to attack Iran doesn't justify even one Iraqi death.

The case for each needs to be made independantly.

Personally, I would say that Syria should be next. They'd be more easily overrun. Then Iran.

[Umfriend]

I may come back to this later, but I do not buy Doc's position as factual, reasonable, nor appropriate. Hah, this is a good one: Iran has become as "strong" as it has because of the US being in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'll tell you this though: I'd rather have Israel as an enemy then the US. The former at least have morals when it comes to doing the neccessary things.

[Dr Mordrid]

Yeah...instead of trying to rebuild your country after a war they'd make it a moot point by turning you into glass.

BTW: it's companies in the UK, Russia, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and France that have been helping build up Irans nuclear capabilities long before the Iraq war, often using Czech companies as intermediaries.

That's been going on for over 20 years, so if anyone is to blame for the current situation look to them and ask why they did it. Sometimes it's with their govts. complicity, sometimes with just a smile and a turned head and sometimes under the table....but that's not often necessary when so many European govts put $$ ahead of principles, or sanity.

And when it all blows up in Europes face for the third time in 100 years who will be the one that'll have to come in and clean up the mess, again? 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count

Info: NTI.org (NTI = nuclear threat initiative)

Dr. Mordrid