BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The real reason for war

26 comments on The real reason for war

The real reason for war
: To repeat: The real reason for war was never WMD but was the moral imperative to rid Iraq of a murderous tyrant and the mistake Bush and Blair made was playing to the U.N. and the left by pushing WMD when they should have pushed their moral hand and justified the war based on morality and humanism.

Tom Friedman tomorrow says the best speech made about the war was made to a hallway by Tony Blair, as recounted in Peter Stothard’s book, “30 Days“:

`What amazes me,’ [Mr. Blair says,] `is how many people are happy for Saddam to stay. They ask why we don’t get rid of [the Zimbabwean leader Robert] Mugabe, why not the Burmese lot. Yes, let’s get rid of them all. I don’t because I can’t, but when you can you should.’ ”

Alas, Mr. Blair never really made this case to his public. Why not? Because the British public never would have gone to war for the good reasons alone. Why not? Because the British public had not gone through 9/11 and did not really feel threatened, because it demanded a U.N. legal cover for any war and because it didn’t like or trust George Bush.

Yes, it’s amazing that we had to make Saddam a threat to us. How self-centered of us. How selfish of us. He was clearly a threat to his own people. But to Europe and the antiwar left, Saddam’s people did not matter.

26 responses to “The real reason for war”

  1. Jerry in Jersey Avatar
    Jerry in Jersey

    “The real reason for war was never WMD but was the moral imperative to rid Iraq of a murderous tyrant” but we are careful in choosing which “murderous tyrants” we feel obliged to remove and which we continuesly support.
    Example: Saddam was a “murderous tyrant” way before he became our enemy and up to that point we could overlook his “murderous tyrant” behavior (and help him conduct his murderous ways by supplying him with intelligence and chemical weapons), the same way we look away when we are faced with what our current allies do in the middle-east, south-east asia, south and central america and africa.
    The only difference was that this “murderous tyrant” lived a bit too close to the tail that is currently wagging the dog and since our “main ally” in the region felt threatened by that, we had do something about this particular “murderous tyrant”.
    Now of course we couldn’t announce that as the real reason for attacking him and since he wasn’t invading another country or doing something else that could be used as an excuse to justify the invasion, we had to make up stories such as WMD’s and now that all that is a proven lie, we are resorting to these “moral imperative” arguments, acting as if it is our duty and normal conduct to go around the world fighting “murderous tyrants” while the exact opposite is true. Let’s be honest about the REAL reasons for a change.
    And you call yourself a Liberal?

  2. Abiola Lapite Avatar
    Abiola Lapite

    I’d wager that Blair couldn’t make the humanitarian argument for the simple reason that the Bush administration wouldn’t let him. Go down that road, and soon enough, you might even have to do something about situations like – gasp – Liberia!
    I can believe that Blair means it when he says that the humanitarian rationale was sufficient to justify the war in Iraq. Coming out of the mouths of conservatives, on the other hand, I take it as the self-serving rubbish that it has to be. The NRO types didn’t send American boys to “I-raq” to die for the freedom of a few “A-rabs,” any more than they are willing to do so for some darkies in West Africa.

  3. Stageleft Avatar
    Stageleft

    Does this sound vaguely familiar?
    “My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq…”
    How about this?
    “My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome.”
    The justification Bush used to start the war was Iraqs WMD weapons & program.
    The rational other than WMD’s is far more likely the furtherance of U.S. foreign policy and influence than the liberation of an oppressed people.

  4. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    Jerry in NJ and Abiola – You are a joke.
    They haven’t found out who was sending anthrax and why last year. Since they haven’t found that person or any leads that actually lead anywhere…I suppose it never happened and those postal workers, an old woman in CT and several other people who were made seriously ill were just figments of our imagination.
    They never found the Zodiac killer….so I suppose he never existed either.
    Nothing has been proven and EVERYONE, including those against the war (France, Germany, Clinton, Madeleine Not-so-bright) all said “Yes, he has WMD’s and he has ignored all of our resolutions and demands, but we can TALK about it.” The anti-war left would say “It’s a country the size of California! We need more time!”
    Yet with all the time they were given to say “Come in you have all access to everything, we are clean as a whistle” they didn’t. In fact, we gave them time to hide things and move them.
    What you Bush hating (you can’t see past that) people ignore is SINCE we took Iraq (and Human Rights Watch now reports we have discovered tens of thousands in mass graves) Syria has pulled thousands of troops out of Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinians are suddenly talking and the violence has ceased, the Iranian theocracy is being challenged, and the Iranian people are emboldened. CHARLES TAYLOR IS STEPPING DOWN IN LIBERIA IN A WEEK since Bush has said he will assist and send in some troops for “peacekeeping.”
    Do you think any of this would have happened without us taking a strategic move in Iraq? What gets me is the same people who didn’t want the U.S. in Iraq want us in Liberia because it’s “altruistic.” Fools.
    I agree with Blair when he said, “Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive. But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership.”
    The man is fully on the record. He’s not doing any two steps like most of the Democrats are now. British intelligence is still angrily standing buy it’s intelligence on the “Nigerian connection.”
    You are probably one of the same people who said before 9/11 we need to cut back on defense, we don’t need the CIA anymore (in fact Clinton’s director didn’t think we needed men in the field or spies; satellites would suffice – what an idiot). You’re the same people who say, “how come this wasn’t prevented?” You are the same people who can give a flying fig about the Palestinians enslaved and slaughtered (according to Human Rights Watch as many as 300,000) in Syria while assailing Israel.
    I am sure you will tell me that you are someone different, but I have spoken to too many people like you on college campuses and in and around Union Square. Once your challenged and asked to defend your theories with facts, you crack. Once you are asked, “What shall be done?” you reply with a blank stare. Fools like yourself who hang out in your little self-congratulatory cliques of know-nothings have “proven” nothing. If the US and Britain (and Denmark, Spain, et al. are proven wrong, at the very least, all people, not just Ba’athists are free in Iraq. Kurds are attending college. Even the fact that people are complaining openly about change not happening fast enough is a pleasure you can’t grasp.
    You are just fools.

  5. BF Avatar
    BF

    “The only difference was that this “murderous tyrant” lived a bit too close to the tail that is currently wagging the dog and since our “main ally” in the region felt threatened by that, we had do something about this particular “murderous tyrant”.
    Hogwash. Invading Iraq was the furthest thing from the Bush agenda before 9/11. After 9/11 it was Saddam’s overt support for terrorism, and his applause of the 9/11 attacks that drew attention. Pair that with the realization that US troops were in Saudi Arabia (Al Quaeda’s stated reason for 9/11) only because of Saddams regime, plus 16 UN resolutions ignored, and invasion becomes an obvious and credible course of action.
    That Saddam was a threat to his own people would never have been pursued as the main justification – the conservatives would have barbecued him over that. Abiola is correct – it certainly was not about freeing some Arabs. Just the same, I’m thrilled Saddam is out, happy his sons are dead, and I’m hopeful the Iraqi people can realize some better days.
    I might point out that in the 1980’s Iraq received most of its arms from Russia. A little thing called the Cold War was happening and the US dealt with lots of unsavory regimes to lure them out of the Soviet sphere of influence. The people of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, East Germany, Slovakia and the Czech Republic are glad of it.
    Jersey Jerry on the other hand seems to think we should not deal with tyrants. All right Jer, fine. Lets start a trade embargo with Saudi Arabia, China, all the Stans, all of Southeast Asia, and 90 percent of Africa. Clever foreign policy.

  6. BF Avatar
    BF

    Oh yeah…and what Catherine said too! :-)
    How is it that so many with their heads up their butts can have the stars in their eyes?

  7. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    I’d hasten to add that Saddam’s forces were shooting at our aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone on a regular basis.
    I’d also point out that his lack of co-operation with inspectors and being less than forthright regarding the destruction of the weapons in question gave us (the US) a legitimate reason to invade and we have had it since he kicked the inspectors out.
    Words mean things. Saddam’s apparently feels otherwise.

  8. CharlesWT Avatar
    CharlesWT

    Despite vigorous efforts, the U.S. government has been unsuccessful so far in finding key senior Iraqi scientists to support its prewar claims that former president Saddam Hussein was pursuing an aggressive program to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, according to senior administration officials and members of Congress who have been briefed recently on the subject.
    The sources said four senior scientists and more than a dozen at lower levels who worked for the Iraqi government have been interviewed by U.S. officials under the direction of the CIA. Some scientists have been arrested and held for months, others have made deals in return for information and at least one has agreed to be interviewed outside Iraq. Scientists Still Deny Iraqi Arms Programs: U.S. Interrogations Net No Evidence (via blogdex)
    WASHINGTON–The United States has found evidence of an active program to make weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including “truly amazing” testimony from Iraqis ordered to dupe UN inspectors before the war, the man leading the hunt said Thursday.
    David Kay, a former United Nations inspector who is joint head of the Iraq Survey Group, offered an unprecedentedly optimistic assessment of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction.
    Although he called for patience, he predicted that doubters were in for a “surprise” by the time his work was done. Inspector says Iraqis talking, will reveal weapons programs (via blogdex)
    Hmmm?…

  9. No Chems 2 Iraq Avatar
    No Chems 2 Iraq

    Jerry in Jersey writes:
    “ways by supplying him with intelligence and chemical weapons”
    What evidence do you have that we supplied Saddam with chemical weapons? This calumny has been repeated so often that even friends of the US have a knee-jerk acceptance of it. But, is it true?
    Radical liberals like to point out the visit of Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq in 1983 as evidence that we supported Saddam. This completely overlooks the fact that Saddam started using chemical weapons against Iran at least 2 years prior to this visit. Where did Saddam get these weapons? Europe. This article names names. In particular, it singles out “the German firm Karl Kolb and the French firm Protec combined to furnish millions of dollars worth of sensitive equipment to six separate plants for making mustard gas and nerve agents, with a capacity of hundreds of tons of nerve agent per year. ”
    What we did was (well after the Iran-Iraq war had been going on for a long time) provide intelligence to Saddam about Iranian troop movements when it appeared Iran would overrun Iraq, shifting the balance of power and destabilizing the entire Middle East. We also loosened export controls that, unfortunately, allowed some sensitive dual-use materials, such as germ samples from the American Type Culture Collection, used the world over for legitimate agricultural research, to get through to Iraq (though these were never successfully weaponized during the Iran-Iraq war). Lastly, we did sell some antiquated military equipment, such as obsolete helicopters which the Iraqis converted to use as aerial sprayers of chemical agents (they could have used any flying vehicle – the helicopters we sold them were not necessary and made no real difference).
    There are far too many people who want to think the worst of the US and they spread these sorts of lies without thinking. Don’t blindly accept them. It is a serious charge, it should be supported with serious evidence.

  10. Jennifer Martinez Avatar
    Jennifer Martinez

    saddam needs to go, WMD or not. Either captured or dead, preferably dead. saddam, his goofy family and their bath party committed untold numbers of unspeakable crimes against humanity.
    Here’s a thought: Had we been able to go into Cambodia and take out Pol Pot and his henchmen prior to April of 1975, how many Cambodian lives would have been spared? The Khmer Rouge wiped out generations of their own people and no one cared.
    saddam, uday, qusay, etc have killed far too many people for far too long. It’s time this madness comes to an end. My .02
    De Oppresso Liber,
    Jennifer Martinez sends

  11. Jennifer Martinez Avatar
    Jennifer Martinez

    And one more thing, just where is CPT. Michael Scott Speicher? Some one in Iraq knows the answer to this question. God speed to TF20, I pray they secure the answer and if alive, CPT. Speicher will return home.
    Jennifer Martinez sends

  12. Michael J. Totten Avatar
    Michael J. Totten

    I wish people would quit getting hung up on the fact that we used to be Saddam’s allies. So what? I wish we hadn’t done it.
    But we also allied ourselves with Joseph Stalin to take down Adolf Hiter. That didn’t make us Stalinists. That’s how the world works sometimes.
    And if we sometimes make similar decisions, such as lining up with Iraq against Iran, and it turns out to be the wrong thing, that doesn’t make us evil. And it certainly doesn’t mean we much continue to make the same mistake by being pro-Saddam until he dies of natural causes.

  13. Abiola Lapite Avatar
    Abiola Lapite

    “You are just fools.”
    “Catherine” (or whatever the hell your name is, you silly b*tch),
    No, you’re the fool, and a pompous, pretentious little twat as well. Who the hell do you think “you people” refers to, Miss High-and-Mighty? I am so sick of seeing brain-dead zombies like you wondering around insulting everyone else by calling them zombies and apologists, when you don’t even have enough brain-cells to call your own to eat without soiling yourselves. My God, you can’t even criticize others without resorting to the tired cliches of the Coulter brigade! How dim can one possibly get?
    For your information, Miss Smart-Ass, I am way more of a “right-winger” than cretins like you will ever be, and I actually supported the war in Iraq – but I did so entirely for humanitarian reasons, not because of a misplaced sense of Bush-worship, or out of delusions that some mythical hoard of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” was waiting to be discovered – unlike dullards like you. There is a difference between supporting a party on the issues and simply saying “Yessah!” to anything it’s leaders advocate, though the subtle distinction may be lost on dizzy little groupies like yourself, too busy fellating the GOP leadership to have a single critical thing to say, whatever policy they choose to adopt.
    If you think anyone who has something critical to say about Bush’s hypocritical attitude towards Liberia and the Congo is some sort of Chomskyite nut, you’d better get on the phone real quick and call for the men in the nice white suits to come take you where you belong – in a comfortably padded cell!

  14. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Michael, “allies” is stretching it, since we supplied Iran with far more military goods during the war (remember Iran-Contra?).
    To say we were wrong to back Iraq is to say we were wrong not to want the Islamic Republic of Iran to gain hegemony in the Middle East. That outcome would have been just as objectionable as having Iraq do the same in reverse. The only acceptable outsome to us, and to the World in general, was a draw, which is what occurred.

  15. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Abiola, you are very much mistaken. The news about WMD is beginning to come out in drips and drabs. It will soon become a rushing torrent.
    Please tell me what is hypocritical about Liberia and the Congo. In Iraq, we had concerns about weapons of mass destruction AND Saddam and his sons were animals AND the Middle East is a region in which we have myriad national security concerns. Liberia and Congo are bad places but, the other reasons that we had to take action in Iraq do not exist there.
    We did not go to war in Iraq for any one reason. There were multiple reinforcing reasons for that campaign.

  16. BF Avatar
    BF

    As I recall, Monsieur Lapite believes the US bears responsibility for intervening in the Congo, because it supported King Leopold’s claim to the region in 1885.
    Obviously, Catherine should not have called him a fool, just foolish. His above rant certainly confirms this.

  17. Abiola Lapite Avatar
    Abiola Lapite

    “His above rant certainly confirms this.”
    And the self-important pronouncements of anonymous cowards like yourself establishes what, exactly? That the world is full of idiots who suffer a tendency to historical amnesia? Or is simple reading comprehension beyond your limited intellectual powers?
    America’s involvement in the Congo goes way beyond King Leopold, right down through the murder of Lumumba up to the support of Mobutu as a great “freedom-fighter” in the proxy war against communism then raging in Angola. Of course, it would damage the sense of smug rectitude held by so many ignoramuses like yourself to learn about inconvenient facts of this sort, so you simply pretend they don’t exist.
    Stupid people like you and that “Catherine” bimbo are the reason why America has managed to so succesfully piss away all of the goodwill the world had towards it after the WTC attack. If America’s conception of foreign policy is to abandon past allies to anarchy once they no longer suit its’ interests, then America’s leaders should be less than surprised if others fail to rush to their aid when America’s own hour of need approaches.

  18. BF Avatar
    BF

    “Stupid people like you and that “Catherine” bimbo are the reason why America has managed to so succesfully piss away all of the goodwill the world had towards it after the WTC attack.”
    Learn some anger management AL. If you rant like a bloody fool, people are going to call you on it.

  19. Abiola Lapite Avatar
    Abiola Lapite

    “Learn some anger management AL. If you rant like a bloody fool, people are going to call you on it.”
    Whatever. My “anger management” skills, or lack thereof, have no bearing whatsoever on the fact that you and that “Catherine” character are incredibly stupid. You display no ability to think critically or independently, have no comebacks to criticisms of your position other than not-so-subtle attempts to change the issue, and have a penchant for mangling the arguments of those who criticize your views that suggests a serious inability to read with comprehension.
    I’d be more inclined to feek “called” on my opinions if I were debating with someone who displayed a glimmer of intellectual ability somewhere within his cranium, rather than with sententious windbags like yourself.
    Here’s some friendly advice to you, “buddy” – just because you can dial in on a modem and reveal your ignorance to the world doesn’t mean it’s sensible of you to do so. If you had the good sense to keep quiet, others would only suspect your less than stellar brainpower, rather than having raw confirmation of this inglorious fact.

  20. Catherine Avatar
    Catherine

    Abiola – you are still making me laugh because you spent so much energy using four letter words, vulgarities and name calling while trying to prove that you are smart.
    You deal from the bottom of the deck, and you made yourself sound like you are short a few cards.

  21. BF Avatar
    BF

    AL,
    You are correct. The US should dilute it’s overstretched military resources to solving the problems of Liberia and the Congo…because…well, the Yanks are responsible for the whole mess, aren’t they? Just as they are responsible for the mideast miasma. We also now see that you are a very very smart person, and we are greatful that you have deigned to engage our limited intellects.
    Now back away slowly from that modem…

  22. buckfush Avatar
    buckfush

    A very short phone call:
    Liberian Ambassador to US to GW Bush: Please Mr. Bush, we need your troops to restore order here in Liberia.
    GW Bush: Drill for oil. (click)
    Call Eckerd Pharmacy Corporate Headquarters at 1-800-325-3737 Call CVS Pharmacy Corporate headquarters at 888 607-4287 and Call Walgreens Pharmacy Corporate headquarters at 800 289 2273 and tell them unless they can get the congress to pass a prescription drug benefit under Medicare part B covering 80 percent of medication with no extra premium, no extra deductibles, no means test, no coverage gaps, you will not buy from them and you will tell your friends also not to buy from them.
    IF ENOUGH PEOPLE JOIN THIS BOYCOTT WE WILL GET A PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT UNDER MEDICARE PART B AT NO EXTRA COST. PEOPLE ALREADY PAY A MONTHLY PREMIUM AND A YEARLY DEDUCTIBLE. CAPTURE THIS TEXT AND PASS IT ON. http://www.boycott-republicans.com

  23. Abiola Lapite Avatar
    Abiola Lapite

    “You deal from the bottom of the deck, and you made yourself sound like you are short a few cards.”
    Is that the best rejoinder you can come up with? Pathetic! You’re even more stupid than I thought you were; why don’t you go fellate Rush Limbaugh or something – that’s something you might at least have a talent for, though I doubt even he would want a hummer from an idiot hag like you.

  24. BF Avatar
    BF

    “why don’t you go fellate Rush Limbaugh or something “- that’s something you might at least have a talent for, though I doubt even he would want a hummer from an idiot hag like you”
    You act like a complete jerk Abiola. A woman critiques you and you call her a fellating idiot hag? These are words befitting a Jerry Springer guest. You’re a smart guy, why do you blather like this? If you are not in fact an adolescent, you should seek professional help for your rage disorder.

  25. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Bucky – no means test? So, you think I should be paying for Warren Buffett’s and Bill Gates’ prescription drug benefits? And, countless other old folks who are way better off than me?
    I don’t think so.

  26. Susan Avatar
    Susan

    Abiola’s reference to the “good will of the world” has been ruined…the good will from most, not all, of the people around the world you referred to has always been, “we like Americans as long as they give us money and every action taken must in some way benefit us, otherwise, they are just a bunch of fat, greedy, capitalist pigs” I have lived overseas just in case you are wondering. By the way, where is the outrage at France for their recent COVERT military operations they took in Brazil?
    Note to Buckfush….I DO NOT want any form of the socialized “universal health care” you are asking for. I have experienced, first hand, treatment through socialized medicine and it SUCKS. Socialized health care is a disaster! All for the sake of receiving free bandages and aspirin:
    -I will have to give up highly skilled and trained doctors since the time, cost and work in becoming highly skilled will outweigh the benefits received. If it costs me 7 years and $500,000 to go through medical school but I only receive $30,000 a year in starting pay (average pay for starting doctors in New Mexico) why should I bother becoming a doctor at all.
    -I will have to replace effective drugs with bogus, cheap drugs since pharmaceutical companies can no longer afford to invest in researching and developing effective drugs.
    -and, should I happen to have surgery in a hospital, if I can EVER get an appointment, I will have to worry about infections from poorly managed hospitals since they will not have the necessary funds to operate them properly.
    NO THANK YOU! Perhaps people should take responsibility in paying for their own health care instead of spending all their money on entertainment, fashion, and sports, after all, these are billion dollar industries and they are getting their money from somewhere, make one wonder…..
    Thank you Catherine for your substance and wisdom. Saddam had to go, the war in Iraq is just, the war on terrorism is necessary, it is not Bush’s war, IT IS MY WAR and I am sick and tired of placating the cowards.