[ScottSolomon]

I am talking more specifically about the LOOTING OF THE RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY - AS IN THE ARTICLE I LINKED (damn cellar needs to color their links)

Here

The term "dirty bomb" springs to mind.

I was also talking about the looting of the hospitals

Here

Now both sets of looting tend to indicate a bit of a lax attitude about maintaining security in Iraq shortly after the shooting war ended. But what is really telling about our aims in Iraq - is that we had the forethought to protect the ministry of oil.

We should not shoot the looters - or the protestors as we did here.

But we should have tried to prohibit SOME looting. Troops were just looking the other way as the country got trashed.

that led Ms Garafolo to wring her hands over 500,000 possible civilian casualties

I love that you through out a straw progressive as a spokesperson for all progressives everywhere. I can then assume that all republicans hold Kelsey Grammer and Jason Priestly's point of view on all issues. Lame.

Jeanine is very passionate, but she really does not have the best grasp of history or a great proclivity for rhetorical mudslinging - but of course that is why the Rethugnican media toss her on the air. They stack her up against generals, professional pundits, and right-wing "scholars" so that the folks at home can marvel at how well the other guests tear apart Garafolo's arguments. Though I love her dearly and I agree with her take on most of this, I feel that she was not adequately prepared to fight off the onslaught of the right-wing media.

If they would have put someone like Chalmers Johnson, Ralph Nader, or Noam Chomsky on to argue the opposing point of view, the audience would have seen a more complex arrangement of the possible pitfalls of the war with Iraq.

Massive civilian casualties was simply one of many possible negative scenarios.


Here are some more


The whole point was, the risk was pretty high that the outcome may put us at more risk than the action. We all knew that 9-11 was really payback for Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Palestine. It is only a matter of time before another such attack occurs (unless of course BushCo actually knew much more than they say they did - and they allowed 9-11 to happen [I hope not]). We did not want Iraq to end up being a cause for rallying the terrorist sentiment throughout the Muslim worlds. We were also leery about spending enormous GOBS of money providing contracts for Bechtel and Halliburton - while our economy is running at a deficit. We were leery about taking on 2 nation building tasks in rabidly Muslim - anti-American countries like Afghanistan and Iraq.

We were upset that Bush needed to lie to have his war. We were upset that Bush dismissed the rest of the world to pursue his war. We were upset that Iraq's NBC weapons - if he had any - would have been sold to the highest bidder BECAUSE we were going to attack. We were upset that Bush never seemed to be aware of any other concern - than his specious argument for war.

In the first gulf war, at leapt 100,000 civilians eventually died. Most of the dead came from disease exacerbated by Iraq's destroyed infrastructure. If Iraq used the NBC weapons Bush said he had, the death toll could easily have topped 500,000. Baghdad is a city of 5 million.

And now that the actual number is actually even lower than Saddam's regime would have effectively killed during the same time period as the war, some people should be wondering where the hell they dropped their moral compass.

You don't know that yet. The Iraq occupation has just begun and more people are still dying. If the Shias decide to rise up in protest of our lack of enthusiasm for their desires for autonomy, we will see more deaths. If the Kurds get squirrelly, you might see Turkey want to fight.

You are crowing about the one thing in this war that everybody on every side agreed would happen. We all knew the U. S. would trounce Saddam's troops like Oscar De La Hoya beating down a local grade school bully.

the anti-war folks believed that Saddam DID have NBC

You see, unlike the right-wing peanut gallery, many of us actually researched the issue and we did not all agree upon the same reason for not going to war. Many different people presented many different reasons why war with Iraq might be a bad idea.

I personally do not feel that the few hyper-industrialized states should be the only states to be able to maintain stockpiles of NBC weapons. I think that states like Iraq should not be allowed to possess nuclear arms - but that is only because it is an actual weapon of mass destruction ( unlike bio and chem weapons). I do not think it is a reasonable to wage a war for chemical or bio weapons - since the weapons can be manufactured anywhere and they are militarily ineffective. The chemical weapons - would have killed a lot of innocent people if they were deployed, and I did not think this was worth the risk.

I thought the inspections should have been allowed to continue - and that as the inspectors found materials, they would continue to destroy them. If Iraq challenged the issue, then I think the UNSC would have authorized force and we would be splitting the bill for Iraq - while maintaining international credibility.

Admittedly this is an imperfect solution to a problem we started in the first place, but it would have allowed us to maintain some semblance of credibility, justification, and legitimacy. It would also have kept the burden of Iraq out of the debts of our children and grandchildren.

Either of which, alone, would be excellent grounds to go to war

Spoken like a man who has never seen a war. I am not saying that I am a box of experience either, but from what I have seen and read in my limited scope, war is a pretty shitty experience. It hardly ever turns out in the way people anticipate, and it has costs in treasure and blood that can be immense. I do not think that we should be launching war with another nation unless they prove to be an actual, imminent threat - as outlined by the founders of this country. Iraq was no imminent or actual threat.

I think you drank a little too much of uncle Karl's kool aid.

It's far more interesting just to see who thinks what and why.

I agree wholeheartedly. None of what we say really matters. I hope I don't seem overly adversarial. My wife tells me I get too upset about this shit.

Bottom line: I think Bush sold this war as one thing, executed it as another, then gloated about it as something else still. I do not think the Secretary of State should lie to the U.N. I do not think a president should used known forgeries as a reason to start a war. I do not like the way that Bush is trying to insinuate that "Since I wuz raaaaight 'bout EYE rak, Im raaaight 'bout the jobsngrowth tax cut."

I am sorry if a sometimes seem a little shrill.