Humor me: you can answer my questions like I answered yours (even the same damn question three times) forthrightly. Remember, you called me a liar ["But that is just false, and you know it."] on the WMD question. I should be pissed about this, but I’m not. I just want to understand where you’re coming from and you’re not giving me any help.

What’s wrong with my rhetoric?
Why do you think that “the whole world thought that Saddam had WMDs before the invasion” is a lie?
Why do you deliberately misinterpret me about the preemptive war question?
Why is it wrong to say that Saddam was part of terrorist networks?
What does “Is ‘restating’ Bush rational really your best argument?” mean?

Preemptive war (or a preemptive strike) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war.

I said that preemptive war was considered just but I find upon reading the Wikipedia article that there is no real agreement on this. Wikipedia explains that there is a “tension” here because, even though one hasn’t been attacked, preemptive war is clearly defensive.

I said that the Iraq war was not preemptive because there was no imminent threat from Iraq. I am not making the preemptive argument at all, nor has any evil neo con/Zionist/Jew.

I said that the Iraq war was preventive: it was supposed to forestall an attack before it became imminent. Thus, if we consider only this element, the Iraq war was not just. However, there was a whole package of justifications for the war of which prevention was only one element. The most important among these elements is the fact that the Gulf War never really ended with Saddam’s defeat and the UNSC produced umpteen binding resolutions against him. Non compliance with any of these would justify an attack and Saddam failed to comply with all of them over many years. Also there was the fact of daily skirmishes in the no-fly zones and the reasonable prediction that one of these would escalate into all-out war, as Saddam fired upon our aircraft. The facts of asymmetrical warfare imply that a so-called rogue state like Saddam’s (or Iran today) can arm insurgent organizations with WMDs and thereby deny any participation in an eventual attack. Leaders responsible for national security cannot simply sit back and tell the people that their hands are tied by international law in the face of threats of this nature because they would lose elections (to consider only the practical side of politics). Therefore, they have to consider preventive attacks as a response if they’re responsible. At the time, I supported Bush’s decision to ask for Congressional authorization for an attack against Iraq and I supported the overwhelming votes in favor. I have seen nothing in the interim that would make me repudiate this. One has to consider what was known at the time the decision was made, not what has happened since. I don’t consider those that opposed the original decision to be unpatriotic or anything like that. I just consider them wrong. But I do consider those that have repudiated their votes or support since then as intellectual cowards. This is the main reason I supported Hillary for president. She showed a lot of guts there and I want a president with the guts to do the right thing.

There were a lot of reasons to consider Saddam being part of terrorist networks and thus to consider his possession of WMDs to be a threat. He had held meetings with al Qaeda; after the Gulf War, Saddam had made a big effort to “Islamicize” his regime; he harbored known terrorists; al Qaeda in Iraq, under Zarqawi, was in Iraq after the invasion of Afghanistan; Ansar al Islam, another al Qaeda affiliate, was dug in in northern Iraq; etc etc. I’m just writing off the top of my head since I doubt that your questions are sincere.

It is true that the whole world thought that Saddam had WMDs before the invasion. The only reason we now know he didn’t is because we invaded. The debate running up to the invasion was about containing Saddam not about whether he had WMDs or not. All this is common knowledge. Bush never said that Saddam had nuclear weapons but only that he was trying to acquire them. Various post-invasion investigations have borne this out. What was wrong with my rhetoric, according to you?

I can’t answer the question, “Is ‘restating’ Bush rational really your best argument?” because I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. Talk about poor rhetoric!

Like I said, I don’t think your questions are sincere. I think you already knew the answers before asking. You have deliberately misinterpreted me and I can’t imagine why. So now: what’s up with you? Spill your guts and tell me your own ideas instead of carping about my “rhetoric.”

In #7 you wrote, “Before March 2003, the whole world—not just the evil neocons/Zionists—thought that Iraq had WMDs and that they wanted a nuclear weapon.” But that is just false, and you know it. Even as rhetoric it is wrong.

One last question. Is “restating” Bush rational really your best argument?

I said it was necessary to prevent the threat from becoming imminent. I’m only restating Bush’s (and many others’) rationales circa 2002-03—especially in the aftermath of 9/11.

This is what I understand to be the doctrine of preventive warfare—just one of many adaptations we must undergo to adapt to asymmetrical warfare.

I merely disagree with the assertion that the US has the right to use any means it considers necessary to prevent any threat to its global dominance from arising.

God! I hate it when people put words in my mouth. Where did you get the idea that I “asserted” the above? Where did you get the idea that anyone has asserted the above? As much as I’ve read about foreign and national security policy, I have yet to read anyone “asserting” such things. See what I mean about your use of hyperbole in the service of your rancid thirdworldism? To repeat—although I know it’s useless—I was explaining how I say we should respond to the threat posed by the global Islamist insurgency under asymmetric warfare. That is far from “any means, any threat, anywhere to any threat to global dominance” that you attribute to me. I was very clear in stating my preference for so-called soft power in this war. Please try and keep up.

As for the rest, I’m confident that we can deal with non violent threats as we always have: with Shumpeter’s “creative destruction”-style capitalism. If that’s neoconservative doctrine, then so be it.

You say you’re aware of the global Islamist insurgency. But then, you say it’s really not all that dangerous because it’s “unsupported” by the vast and overwhelming masses of Muslims, violent or not. So then, it’s a teeny-tiny global insurgency. Nothing to see here; just move on. Even if this were true—which it certainly is not—what would be wrong with “preventive” warfare against them? Why not defeat them while they’re so small and helpless? Why wait until their strength grows? Remember that they declared war on us, not the other way around.

I’m sure that I am neo conservative if that means that I support my country’s global power. It’s an inheritance from our past—starting with Washington—who founded the modern US Navy—and Jefferson—who sent them to defeat the jihadists of the eighteenth century in Northern Africa. These two events together established the “freedom of the seas,” which allowed American business to go global. Even you can see how “freedom of the seas” benefits anyone at all who wants to do business in the world and doesn’t want to pay protection money—like European states were doing back in the eighteenth century—to jihadists. But it benefits us more because we have a gigantic head-start. It’s our job to preserve and protect this head-start that was gained by our forefathers. I think would be a crime to throw all this away for some multiculturalist/thirdworldist pie in the sky. I know that if we weren’t “dominating,” then some other country would be. The US, after all, is just after business opportunities. As long as one plays by the rules of business, one is free to come and go as one pleases and to think as one pleases. If I were Muslim or Arab, I’d prefer to be dominated—and even occupied—by this than by some sick enforcers of public morality of a religion like Islam.

Roque, I have been considering the above and for the life of me I have no idea what your point is.

It, the war, was not “preemptive” since there was no “imminent threat.” So where in god’s name does that leave us? You seem to be saying the war was unnecessary, “no Imminent threat,” Bush never claimed Iraq was an “imminent threat,” and yet he took the country to war.

Just a whim? Help me out here. Please.

Oh, I’m quite aware they exist – I’m just also aware that they are a tiny number of people unsupported even by the vast majority of violent Islamists (most of whom are not internationally focused and interested in their own individual nations), not to mention the overwhelming majority of Muslims. I am aware that September 11th divided and weakened their movement, that their tactics of murdering civilians prevent them from gaining any substantial public support, and that we have nothing to gain and much to lose from exaggerating their strength. I am aware that “propaganda by the deed,” the method of using terrorist attacks to provoke blowback and repression in hopes of using a governments own actions to undermine it, is a tactic used by organizations who are losing and are at the end of their rope; choosing not to go by their playbook is the most effective way of destroying them.

But thank you for your clear elucidation of neoconservative doctrine. It’s not that I’m unfamiliar with its arguments; I merely disagree with the assertion that the US has the right to use any means it considers necessary to prevent any threat to its global dominance from arising.