Keith Devens .com

"McCain is right on here, where he talks about real peace, not the "peace" that is maintained by indefinite occupation of a murderous regime by ineffective inspectors."

I think this is one of the basic things the two sides disagree on. I don't see any problem with an "indefinite occupation" of inspectors. What's the alternative? Well, thousands of innocent civilians will be killed (estimates are 3500 in Desert Storm, and more predicted this time) and the U.S. will spend billions of dollars that could be used for something useful like education or hydrogen research. Pro-war people gloss over the civilian body count likely to occur in this war, but I guess that's ok - they're only Iraqis right?

I think this is one of the basic things the two sides disagree on.

Hmm... thanks for sharing. I never thought of it that way. I don't have much time, so I'll share some thoughts briefly and if I think of anything else later I'll add to it.

First of all, the only reason Saddam has made any pretension to disarming is because we've amassed hundreds of thousands of troops around him. Without that threat, inspections are even more useless. The problem is that we can't afford to keep soldiers surrounding Iraq with the threat of war indefinitely.

I recently spoke to a marine who was just activated about a week ago. He said after September 11th the gov't kept a lot of marines hanging around the region because they really didn't know whether it would just be Afghanistan. Unfortunately, they had nothing to do for 9 months to a year, and a lot of the marines wound up being very upset about it. The way the guy put it was "how many marriages had to be cancelled, and how many fathers missed their children being born?" He told of a dentist who got called up who lost his practice. If he was fighting it would have been one thing, but the time was wasted.

To keep inspections going implies keeping our troops there, which is unacceptable.

Second, the point is Saddam's attitude, not whether we've found a few tiny components of Saddam's store of weapons. Under resolution 1441, which was approved unanimously by the security council, Saddam was given one last chance to immediately disarm. He hasn't done that. Period. The resolution warned there would be "serious consequence" (read: military action) if he didn't comply, and he hasn't. At this point, we're well within our rights under 1441 to take action.

Saddam is a threat that isn't going away. We know that he's close to getting nukes. He simply must be dealt with, and that's what we're going to do.

Anyway, I gotta run. But quickly: I don't know why people such as yourself think that occupying Iraq with inspectors is a viable option. You say thousands of civillians may be killed. But how many more will be liberated after our operation is successful? Mainly, the problem I tend to see with people of your opinion is that they wouldn't approve of war no matter what, so their opinion is not really realistic. Maybe you can tell me under what circumstances war would be justified, how long an "indefinite occupation" would last, why you don't think Saddam is a threat to our security, and why you don't think it's worthwhile to liberate the Iraqi people.

I guess I don't agree that sending half of our military force to the Gulf is all that useful in making the inspectors' jobs any easier. Saddam agreed to let them back in before we had such a massive buildup.

You said that "people like me" wouldn't support war in any circumstance. Absolutely false. When would I feel violence is justified? In two cases: 1) if Saddam never would have allowed inspectors in or 2) if the inspectors found weapons that he refused to destroy. Last fall before he agreed to let them back in, I was all for launching an attack. Why? Because this is alarmingly similar to what happened in the mid 30s with Germany. They were this weakened little country that nobody gave much thought to, but what they were really doing in secrecy was building the most powerful military the planet had ever seen. With nobody checking on them and forcing them to follow their military restrictions, they were free to do whatever they wanted. As far as anyone knew, Iraq could have been doing the same. With inspectors in there, at least they are under the microscope in are in check if you will. They aren't going to be able to organize an attack on anyone in those conditions.

As for why I don't feel it worthwhile to liberate the Iraqi people. Plain and simple, that's not our job! Sure, to us their ruler is evil and cruel, but so are many many other rulers on this planet. Why stop at Saddam? Why not travel the globe and get rid of all the meanies that we don't like? Why not head over to North Korea and take care of that maniac instead of blowing off all of their taunts as no big deal? Because Iraq has something we can't live without and we need to make sure we don't get cut off.

You said Iraq is getting close to getting nukes. Who isn't? Every country is either working on them or are expecting to be able to purchase them from someone else. Are we going to go around fighting everyone that has or is about to get nukes? That'll be the end of the world right there.

Ok, and this final point absolutely and completely drives me bonkers. This is the core difference between my views and those of the pro-war crowd. It is this insistence that Saddam disarm. Disarm what? I'm not naive enough to think that he's being straight with us, but since he's not, it's up to the inspectors (with our intelligence assistance) to find these nuclear/biological/chemical/whatever weapons. Please find the stuff and prove it exists before having a fit over it.

It's like two kids arguing:
KID1: You better give my football back or I'm gonna kick your ass.
KID2: I don't have your football.
KID1: I said you better give it to me or you'll regret it.
KID2: I don't have your damn ball. You can even come over to my house and look.
KID1: Ok, fine. I will.

KID1 looks.

KID2: See, I told you I don't have it.
KID1: That's it. I'm gonna give you the beating of a lifetime. Give it to me right now.
KID2: I told you I don't have it!

Etc, etc. If he had found the ball and wouldn't give it back, then fine - the asskicking is justified.

Sure, Saddam has some stuff he shouldn't. Maybe even a whole crapload. My point is that we should find it before isisting that it is destroyed. If the inspectors can't find it, our intelligence should help. Oh wait - they have helped and when the inspectors got there, there was nothing to see. How do we plan on bombing these weapons facilities if we don't even know where they are? Well, we'll probably just level every inch of the country and not worry about it. The civilians lucky enough to survive will have been liberated! Yipee!

Someone please explain to me this banter over disarming. This constant bombardment about not disarming-what-we-don't-know-you-have-but-you-better-get-rid-of-it is getting really old.

One more thing. I thought it was interesting that Dubya's daddy doesn't even support the "cowboy" do-it-alone mentality.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html

I guess I don't agree that sending half of our military force to the Gulf is all that useful in making the inspectors' jobs any easier. Saddam agreed to let them back in before we had such a massive buildup.

Saddam agreed to let them in because of the threat of military force, plain and simple. By pretending to comply like he has, he's been able to manipulate some world opinion and get some people and some countries on his side. He wasn't that stupid that he would obviously reject the demands made on him. It's much more effective to appear to follow them while really not.

Ok, and this final point absolutely and completely drives me bonkers. This is the core difference between my views and those of the pro-war crowd. It is this insistence that Saddam disarm. Disarm what? I'm not naive enough to think that he's being straight with us, but since he's not, it's up to the inspectors (with our intelligence assistance) to find these nuclear/biological/chemical/whatever weapons. Please find the stuff and prove it exists before having a fit over it.

Oh come on. No one doubts that he has these weapons. Even the U.N's own figures says he has something like tens of thousands of liters of anthrax, etc. You're making it really hard for me to take you seriously.

Furthermore, the inspections have always been ineffective. Most of the useful information we've ever learned has consistently been from Iraqi defectors. The inspectors have a history of failure.

Moreover, under the terms of 1441 that isn't even the criterion. The inspectors are not there to find stuff, they're there to be shown the proof of Saddam's disarmament. You're making stuff up.

I'm also frustrated that you brought up the oil argument (though avoided using the word). Again, you're making it real hard for me to take you seriously. That isn't a serious argument.

One of the things I can't believe I forgot to mention in my first post, is that we've been at this for 12 years. I don't know why you'd want to continue it.

Finally, I think the "we'll kill Iraqi civillians" argument is a red herring. If you really cared about the Iraqi civillians, you'd want to see them liberated. I can't wait to hear reports of them dancing in the street after their liberation, like they did in Afghanistan.

We've been at this for 12 years, yes. Those were 12 very peaceful years. What's one more? What's five more? Why is this such a big F-ing deal all of a sudden? Answer me that if you would. Why weren't you jumping up and down for an attack 2 years ago?

Red herring. You amaze me. So, you're saying that if we kill 10,000 innocent people and everyone else is liberated then we did our job? Nice attitude.

Did I say that I doubted that he had weapons? Please don't be so selective in what you read. Go back and reread if you have to. I said I'm sure he does. Just find it before bitching about it. Why is that such an unacceptable solution?

Keith, one question:

Moreover, under the terms of 1441 that isn't even the criterion. The inspectors are not there to find stuff, they're there to be shown the proof of Saddam's disarmament.

How do you prove that something is not there anymore? I mean, if Iraq would've been asked about what happened with those dozen tons of nerve gas, and they'd answer "we destroyed them years ago, we can show you the crater", there might be two possiblities: 1) They are right, but how do they prove it, if no remnants of the WMD are to be found 2) They are blatantly lying and hiding away some stuff. But they could be always hiding something in Saddams private cellar. For the bystander, the question arises if there is really a chance for the Iraqis to prove disarmament, particularly if all they hear is "we're going to attack you anyway".
Another perspective I recently heard and which could explain the uncooperative stance of Saddam is that if you're faced with invasion, you won't necessarily lower your defenses. This motive counteracts with the disarmament issue of course. It's a lose-lose situation regardless which course of action Saddam choses. So the most rational action might be to hesitate and play on time, even if he knows it's running out.

I hope the above does not sound as if I'm defending Saddam and his totalitarian regime, that's definitely not my point. I just want to illustrate the snafu situation as I see it. For me, the containment strategies with inspectors and sanctions was more or less effective. I don't know if you're going to believe me, but IIRC the inspectors managed to destroy 95% of Saddams WMD potential in the 90ies, according to what they were saying themselves. Why not continue this process? Be aware that it's neither you or me who is probably going to die in the coming war. If I were a soldier, I'd rather have my marriage cancelled then coming back in a body bag.