It is ironic, but Galloway bears some of the responsibility for the decision to go to war. Had he (and others like him) not helped Saddam Hussein take money out of babies' mouths (for whose suffering the U.S. was blamed), the U.S. might have felt less urgency in changing the status quo. Furthermore, had Hussein been unable to evade the sanctions, as he did with the help of Galloway and others like him, Hussein might not have tried to build status among Arab radicals by hinting about his (non-existant) WMDs.

Then there is the Brer Rabbit effect. When people as noxious as Galloway denounced Bush's proposal, it was like Brer Rabbit begging Brer Bear not to throw him in the briar patch. (Of course, that's exactly what Brer Bear did.) I'm sure I'm not the only person who was highly skeptical about the wisdom of going to war with Iraq, but who felt no alternative but to trust the President after seeing the kind of people who opposed him.

rather a strange, flimsy argument by fsilber, based on false, ridiculous assumptions ...

Firstly, the US was (rightly) blamed for the suffering of Iraqi children, because it was the US who led the brutal sanctions campaign. Indeed, Madeleine Albright admitted as much: When asked about her view regarding the deaths of half a million Iraqi children through sanctions, she said the price was "worth it".

fsilber attributes extraordinary influence and power to a single, insignificant UK MP (Galloway) - fsilber suggests that Galloway had the power to help Saddam evade the sanctions.

fsilber also suggests that Galloway and the anti-war camp were so important (when, actually, they were simply ridiculed and ignored) that it was their chants (not geopolitics, e.g. control of oil) that motivated Bush to do the opposite.

How was Saddam "hinting about his WMD" (which fsilber concedes didn't exist)? Saddam persistently denied he had any. So it seems the twisted logic here is: Saddam is a liar. So when he says he possesses no WMD, that means he does. (That, presumably, is how he "hints" about them.) Therefore, we must attack and invade.

On the other hand, if Saddam says that he does possess WMD, that's because he's been found out and cannot lie his way out. So we must attack and invade.

It is this Catch-22 logic which illustrates that the intention was always to (commit the supreme war-crime of unprovoked aggression and) attack.

fsilber:

When people as noxious as Galloway denounced Bush's proposal, it was like Brer Rabbit begging Brer Bear not to throw him in the briar patch. (Of course, that's exactly what Brer Bear did.) I'm sure I'm not the only person who was highly skeptical about the wisdom of going to war with Iraq, but who felt no alternative but to trust the President after seeing the kind of people who opposed him.

Well, then, I hope you learned your lesson about using that particular line of argument, though it's about the only one left to the few diehard warhawks, and one reason Hitchens continues to kick around poor old Galloway. It's the old "You don't eat meat, eh? Hitler was a vegetarian, too!" sneer. You fell for such nonsense, and you ought to be ashamed.

As it happens, there were plenty of good people against the invasion, too, and they had in addition the advantage of better reasoning. We were simply jeered off the table by pro-war supporters with catcalls of "coward" or "America-hater" or "Saddamite" or "terrorist-lover" or whatever. The pro-war gang, on the other hand, relied heavily on hysteria and connecting dots from totally different pages in order to make a coherent (though utterly factitious) narrative to support their case. Or just consider the "Heads I win, Tails you lose" reasoning (accurately outlined by rippon just above) about how they knew the WMDs had to be there.

So in the future, why not apply your critical reasoning skills to the arguments presented by both sides instead of relying on the personalities of the most extreme elements?

Since the sanctions were intended to bring about compliance (and possibly topple Saddam) without going to war, it is almost a no-brainer that failed sanctions contributed to the ensuing war. The causal relationship is more about giving Saddam the means to acquire some forbidden weapons systems and to pretend to have others and about giving Saddam the means to buy influence.

One critical miscalculation of Saddam's was his failure to realize that his ownership of the French and the Russians (with its guaranty of no UN Security Council resolution that would be unanimously regarded as authorizing the war) wasn't going to protect him from Bush and Blair. Saddam not only thought he need never comply with the UN requirement to disarm transparently, but also that he could indefinitely give the impression he had weapons he didn't.

More generally, this is an example of how the UN can contribute to war when it is dominated, as it often is, by the thugs of the world,

But, the sanctions were having effect. That the infrastructure as we now know had been reduced to its moribund state and that Saddam was effectively put in a position where he could not reconstitute his weaponry (never mind destroying them) must surely say something for sanctions horrible as they were for the ordinary classes. Wonder what a poll in Iraq might reveal re a choice between a sanctioned existence and the current nightmare.

You write of the miscalculation of Saddam!! The irony. But what of the miscalculation of one George Bush on multiple levels. And of course the condescending dump on the French & Russians. Was it not GB who famously looked into Putin's soul and felt he could trust him (or something equally inane).

Maybe just another miscalculation then?

Galloway may have accepted some benefit from Saddam but it pales in what will accrue the oil companies if and when the Iraqi oil law gets passed. Further irony or is it just method of thuggery?

fsilber:

It is ironic, but Galloway bears some of the responsibility for the decision to go to war. Had he (and others like him) not helped Saddam Hussein take money out of babies' mouths (for whose suffering the U.S. was blamed), the U.S. might have felt less urgency in changing the status quo. Furthermore, had Hussein been unable to evade the sanctions, as he did with the help of Galloway and others like him, Hussein might not have tried to build status among Arab radicals by hinting about his (non-existant) WMDs.

No doubt some engaged in corrupt acts with Saddam in order to line their pockets, but the US didn't go to war with Iraq based on a messy situation in the 'oil-for-food' arrangement. And as to false claims of WMDs by Saddam, I could just as easily argue that they could have been averted if Bush (or Clinton) had negotiated a final settlement with Saddam involving trading the end of sanctions for inspections. Pinning this on the likes of Galloway seems a pretty huge stretch.

Then there is the Brer Rabbit effect. When people as noxious as Galloway denounced Bush's proposal, it was like Brer Rabbit begging Brer Bear not to throw him in the briar patch. (Of course, that's exactly what Brer Bear did.) I'm sure I'm not the only person who was highly skeptical about the wisdom of going to war with Iraq, but who felt no alternative but to trust the President after seeing the kind of people who opposed him.

Bush may be a childish moron, but I doubt that even he (or his puppetmaster, Cheney) would have been pushed into Iraq merely by hearing that George Galloway was upset at the idea. The fact that you admit to doing so yourself says even less for YOUR intellect.