I agree. Also, we don’t need to go into the cities to help the Ma’dan. Their “genocide” is due to war and one could argue that it doesn’t fit the definition of genocide. Did you read my earlier post to Spont?
This is the rub, if we do a siege of Baghdad, Saddam can just wait us out. I don’t think he’ll let the 4 million inhabitants of Baghdad leave. So when they start to starve, what do we do? We’ll have to feed them. Anything else is politically unfeasible. Meanwhile, Saddan just waits. It just doesn’t work.
Well, we now have our incident:
The weird part is, they’ve been popping off missiles for weeks, but if they turn on the radar guidance, they get clobbered. So they’ve been firing “blind” and have about as much chance as Stevie Wonder shooting down a duck with a .22 pistol.
According ABC radio-news, ‘sources’ in the administration are quoted as saying that they do not see this is an incident that will be the trigger for war. I haven’t seen a web-cite for this or other confirmation.
Trouble is, though the UN is commited to an inspection regime, Bush isn’t. He has said over and over he is not going to hand this over to them to decide whether war is justified or not. He expects the UN to dance to his tune, not the other way around. Also, scuttlebutt has it that the US wont be ready for the Big One before December anyway, so he can look like he’s being patient and peaceful while he gets ready to pull the pin.
I still think he’s going to do it, regardless. Being a pessimist, I love being wrong, suprises are usually pleasant. Just infrequent.
I think that’s not an apt analogy. You and SuaSponte simply disagree about the cost. You refer to any civilians as part of the cost (which I would be Sua agrees with and I certainly agree with), but Sua rightly (IMHO) points out that there is an additional future cost if genecide isn’t countered–specifically, future genecide. You must consider in your cost analysis the future actions of a killer undeterred, as well as the actions of potential killers who think they might get away with it.
your analogy is crap. first of all, the iraqis in this case weren’t firing “blind.” they were firing with the aid of radar. second, when the iraqis are firing without radar, they’re not actually firing blind. firing without turning on radar is not exactly the same thing as firing without the aid of any type of sight/tracking. third, aren’t ducks that are being fired upon. they’re american and british humans. if stevie wonder was firing at people with a .22, i doubt you’d say “no harm, no foul.”
despite your crude analogy, i doubt that you’d volunteer to get in a plane and fly over an iraqi military installation that’s firing “blind.” it’s no picnic. and every missile that’s launched has the potential to kill people that are acting pursuant to UN mandates.
do i get to add words to the poll question? if so, i’d add the numbers of civilians being killed by the current iraqi regime, both by murder and by starvation. i’d also add in the chance of nuclear blackmail. i’d also add in the chance that, if iraq is able to procure nuclear weapons, that they would be used against iraq’s enemies, including the US, and the number of casualties that would result from that.
so what? why are we only allowed to stop al queda?
the fact that saddam hasn’t used WMD on american personnel doesn’t mean that he won’t in the future. he’s certainly showed a propensity for using them on his own people. and why are we only concerned about americans?
as pointed out by Sua, the point is that he’s trying to get WMD. he’s not doing that for personal satisfaction. and i still haven’t seen any proposed methods for stopping his WMD programs other than war. we’ve been trying inspections and sanctions for 11 years now, and that hasn’t worked.
again, as pointed out by Sua, just because we haven’t taken action for other humanitarian causes doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do so here. is this an argument in favor of military action in Rwanda and Tibet (as well as renewed action in Somalia), or against military action in Iraq?
also, you cited to reason 15 for “better ways” to free Iraq, but i don’t see any reference to “better ways” to fight the war in reason 15.
i think 6 has been addressed by others.
i thought you’d retracted this argument. have you revived it?
i don’t mean to be rude, but your editing has just added arguments. Sua and others have already addressed many of these arguments. perhaps you also need to look at taking out some arguments that don’t hold water.
this is interesting for a couple of reasons. first of all, you appear to be criticizing bush for advocating the continuation of inspections, despite the fact that you argue in favor of inspections elsewhere.
again, he has tried to “get the most support from the largest number of countries and form the largest coalition [he] can.” i thought you agreed with this point.
you also talk about this initially being a debate “just among the members of the adminstration.” i think this debate has been public from the beginning. and as Sua pointed out (and i thought you agreed), debate among the administration, followed by talking to Congress, followed by going to the UN seems like the logical course of action.
also, it’s worth pointing out that the arguments in favor of regime change didn’t come about “just before an election.” it’s been the official US policy since clinton in (if i remember correctly) 1998. (if you need a cite for that, let me know). the debate on invading iraq has been going on since then, and it’s something that bush talked about while campaigning for president. it certainly wasn’t in the forefront of our agenda while we were in afghanistan, but that’s hardly support for a “wag the dog” scenario. and surely you’re not arguing that presidents can only talk about war in odd-numbered (and thus, non-election) years. when was he supposed to broach the subject?
again, i think you need to drop this point unless you can come up with some realistic “non-war” alternatives.
we’ve been dreaming since before Desert Storm. we are working to develop revolutionary armies. we are working on peace in the Middle East. we are getting as much international support as possible.
the “wait and see” approach is dangerous because it allows Hussein time to continue his WMD development program, which is one of the problems that we’re trying to deal with. it also allows him to continue his massacre of his citizens and his efforts to repress those who we would like to see come to power. it also allows him to continue to repress and fight against our efforts toward peace in the Middle East, and our efforts to provide stability to the region.
i’m also not sure how you propose that we divide Iraq into 3 countries without deposing the current Iraqi government. surely you don’t think they’ll just agree to that.
how about an administration that doesn’t demand the information they want to support a war? this statement is dripping with sinister overtones, but i just don’t get it. are you arguing that the bush administration’s attempts to gain information and intelligence is bad?
i disagree with this analogy. i think a better analogy is a bank robber who takes hostages. he threatens to kill hostages unless the cops leave the area. the cops don’t leave, so the bank robber starts killing the hostages. are the cops to blame?
for those who are worried about collateral damage, i have another example. in WWII, british agents trained a couple Czech agents, and then parachuted them into Germany. the agents assasinated Reinhard Heydrich.
see this website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERheydrich.htm
so who was responsible for these civilian deaths? the british/czechs? or the nazis?
i’d be willing to bet that plenty of people would blame the America for that. however, i think it depends on the reason the US has been invaded. if there wasn’t an ample reason for invasion, then the invaders would be blamed. in this case, there is ample reason for invasion: massacre and repression of citizens, increase stability in the region, humanitarian aid to the starving citizens of Iraq, put down the attempts of a madman to gain WMD, protect American interests in the region, etc.
nobody’s saying that saddam has to come out into a great big, wide open area to fight. but he’s not just stationing his troops in cities for defense. he’s putting them there hoping that the likelihood of civilian casualties will make the war more unpopular, and more difficult to fight. he knows that coalition military forces will have to slow down and be more deliberate because of the surrounding civilians. he knows that the coalition military will be put in danger because of their caution. he’s stationing his troops in cities because he knows our caution about civilian casualties (a concern he doesn’t share) gives him an advantage. that’s bullshit.
while the number of civilian casualties is something that should be considered, it can’t be the only factor in our determination. bad guys like saddam can’t be allowed to act with impunity just because they choose to increase the likelihood of civilian casualties. saddam has killed thousands of people. he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that just because he’s using the people that he hasn’t killed yet as human shields.
[quote]
by Giraffe:
SuaSponte has claimed that a war is justifiable solely due to the treatment of the Ma’dan. To me, this is equivalent to saying that it’s reasonable to stop a fleeing criminal with hand grenades, and that the criminal is responsible for the fifteen people you blow up, not you.
[quote]
no, it’s not. i’m not aware of any war plans that provide for laying siege to innocent civilians.
look, i have friends and family in the military (american, british, australian, canadian, german, and french). and frankly, between taking out a few innocent civilians and seeing my brother come home alive, i’d rather rather send flowers to iraq and have my brother around for Christmas. but i have faith that the coalition military will do everything within its power to keep the civilian casualties to a minimum. i haven’t seen any evidence that our war plans include the indiscriminate carpet bombing of cities.
they did? i thought they found evidence of WMD, but were kicked out before they could either find them or the type of smoking gun the anti-conflict crowd seems to feel is necessary.
actually, you should do more reading. i think lots of people are acknowledging this as a possibility, and one that we’ll probably have to deal with eventually. but why do we have to deal with every problem right now? unless you’re in favor of making hard and fast rules like “we have to attack every country that’s developing nuclear weapons” (vs. “we should never attack countries that are developing nuclear weapons”?), we ought to address these situations on a case-by-case basis.
i couldn’t have said it better myself.
That much is certain.
Actually, Saddam doesn’t live anywhere. He doesn’t spend two straight nights in one bed, uses body doubles for most public appearances, etc. If the US were attacking Baghdad, I strongly doubt Saddam would be in the city.
And yes, Saddam is threatening to make the war an urban war. His threat to station his troops within the cities is improper under the Just War Doctrine - it does not increase his odds of victory, and therefore the increased risk to noncombatants is not justified.
One could argue that. One would be wrong. The definition of “genocide” is not up for debate. Genocide has been defined by the Genocide Convention, for which I have provided a link. What is happening to the Ma’dan falls under that definition.
BTW, there is nothing in the Genocide Convention that says that if a genocide is due to war, it’s OK. Do you have a point?
Thank you for the analogy. You have proved my point. You see, in American jurisprudence, if a criminal resists arrest, the criminal is legally responsible for any deaths that occur in the attempt to capture him/her.
And it is not “overkill” if the force used is the force necessary to capture the criminal. The police (and the military) must do what is feasible to avoid innocent death, while still capturing the criminal. Unavoidable deaths are the responsiblity of the criminal
You see, you are starting from the assumption that Saddam has the right to defend himself. Under the UN Charter, he doesn’t have that right.
Sua
I am not willing to take your word for it. Could you prove either or both of these statements?
See above. My crystal ball of telepathy doesn’t work as well on Bush as yours does. And how does Bush get Saddam to help him win elections?
In this case, I suspect “terrorist regime” and “bunch of narrow minded ignorant religious bigots” are more or less synonymous.
The purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was to break up the terrorist networks they were running. Osama bin Laden was hiding there, remember?
We can if we don’t do anything against terrorists. I must be misunderstanding you; this seems so obviously mistaken that I find it hard to believe you meant it.
We were talking about Iraq. If, as you say, military action to enforce inspections has nothing to do with the war on terror, why are you bringing terror up?
Perhaps one hundred 9/11s would not affect American power. I question your strategic thinking, to say the least, but let us assume for the moment that you are correct.
Don’t you think Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction would weaken US power? Don’t you think he might use them to attack Israel, or re-invade Kuwait, or blackmail Saudi Arabia, or generally start World War effing Three?
Possibly. I would expect that this is because Saddam will do what he has been doing for the last ten years - “cheat and retreat”. The difference is, you seem ready to blame this on Bush, and I on Saddam.
You keep repeating that. Maybe if you do it enough, it will be true. Or maybe not.
Wishful thinking.
I wouldn’t hold my breath.
YMMV. In fact, I expect it will.
Regards,
Shodan
Not about the War on Terror? Well, because it isn’t, is it? Despite feverish insistence, no evidence has surfaced that connects Iraq with Al Queda. Indeed, as recently reported, when the CIA failed to come up with such, Bush instructed Rumsfeld to conduct another investigation, apparently in hopes of a more desireable result. Nonetheless, the innuendo and implication have wrought more effect than truth: many American’s believe that such a connection exists, despite the paucity of evidence.
If you have such evidence, you should forward it to Our Churchill at once. Have you such? I rather think not.
Al Queda has proved to be a fog, we don’t know who they are, we don’t know where they are, we don’t even know if they still exist in any meaningful way. But Fearless Leader must be seen as proactive, he must be Doing Something. Iraq is the nail that fits our hammer.
Suspect whatever you like, prove what you can. The Taliban as sophisticated terrorists? Booshwa! Those guys couldn’t organize a Haddasah luncheon, as was once remarked about the Yippies. Now, the Taliban is defeated. Are we demonstrably safer? Perhaps. It could also be that it is as effective as the gaboon viper repellent I have in my front lawn, thus far, no such tropical snakes have threatened my Minnesota home. Take that as proof of effectiveness.
So where’s he hiding now? Baghdad? Cleveland? Oceania?
According to Our Leader, he already has them, oodles of Nuclear Anthrax and Intercontinental Drone Aircraft to deliver them. Has had them for years and is feverishly determined to use them against them at his earliest opporunity, crisis, emergency, AAArrrooooga! Code Red!
Piffle. Then why hasn’t he? The desperate urgency of the situation eluded Fearless Leader until the elections loomed on the horizon (“You don’t bring out a new product line in August”)
So riddle me this: what changed suddenly, dramaticly in August of this year such that 10 years of complaisance tuned into an immediate crisis that must be dealt with at once. My answer is: nothing. Yours?
“actually, you should do more reading. i think lots of people are acknowledging this as a possibility”
Can you give me examples? We are talking here about North Korea attacking the South, making nuclear threats to Seoul and the US backing down in the face of such threats. Who is saying that the US would respond in such a manner?
. “we’ve been trying inspections and sanctions for 11 years now, and that hasn’t worked.”
Actually inspectors worked just fine when they were on the ground and they succeeded in largely destroying Iraqi nuclear facilities. Obviously if they aren’t even in Iraq they won’t “work” . This just suggests that the correct way forward is to get them back on the ground.
More importantly no one has showed how regime change will “work”. How will the US prevent Saddam from passing his weapons to terrrorists after he realizes his regime is finished? How will the US control every weapons facility in Iraq after the war when it doesn’t even know their location for sure?
Of course, elucidator. The Bali explosion was caused by a natural gas leak. The tanker truck that blew up the synagogue in Tunisia exploded because the driver was carelessly smoking a cigarette. The French tanker off Yemen developed a big hole in it after it was attacked by sperm whales. The people who shot at the Marines in Kuwait thought they were carrying water pistols.
We don’t know if Al-Qaeda still exists in any meaningful way.
Putting that aside, I agree with you that there is no proven connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and the Bushies are idiots to try to push that argument. 'Course, I’m concerned with the probable results of an invasion if Iraq doesn’t disarm, not the rationales set forth by the Bushies.
Sua
Well, Sua, despite the snideness of your remarks, they bring up an interesting point. These incidents have occured, and you take that as proof that they are were orchestrated by the dreaded Al Queda. Says who? Which are inspired by Al Queda, and which were directed? Do you know? Does anyone?
“You see, in American jurisprudence, if a criminal resists arrest, the criminal is legally responsible for any deaths that occur in the attempt to capture him/her.”
Legal responsibility and moral responsibility are not the same thing. And legal responsibility is never the sole criterion for making decisions about life and death. For instance if there is a choice between letting one murderer get away and killing ten innocent by-standers I doubt there is a single policeman in America who would choose to kill the bystanders . Apparently you would choose the opposite; which just makes me hope that you avoid a career in the police force or , for that matter, in the foreign-policy business.
What’s the difference, in pratical terms? If they were directed by Al-Qaeda, we need to take out Al-Qaeda. If they were inspired by Al-Qaeda, we need to take out Al-Qaeda.
In any event, that’s not how Al-Qaeda ever worked. It was a source of funding and, yes, inspiration, for affiliated groups and cells. There were very few attacks that were directly controlled by Al-Qaeda.
Sua
Do you argue they are different in this circumstance?
And the death of innocents is never the sole criterion, either. If that murderer is likely to kill 11 more people if he gets away, or if the escape of the murderer encourages other people to commit murder in the expectation that if they are about to get caught they can escape by putting more innocents at risk, it is better that the policeman open fire.
Oh, fine. I note CyberPundit, that you have never responded to the assertions by myself and others that allowing Saddam to get away with his genocides, development of WMD, etc. will encourage others to do the same.
This is not a theoretical concern; there have been at least four and probably five genocides that I can recall in the last decade alone.
Your willingness to let a committer of genocide to dictate whether or not the rest of the world will stop a genocide, I submit, will teach future leaders that they can get away with genocide if they threaten enough innocents. Thus, you are the one who is willing to let more innocents die than I am.
You are opposed to stopping this genocide because you believe that more civilians will die than will be saved. More innocents will die if your approach is adopted.
It just makes me hope that you avoid a career in the police force or, for that matter, in the foreign policy business.
Sua
Well, Sua, you might have a point if the Bushista’s primary justification for war were the moral highground of genocide. But the primary justification offered is the alleged threat that Iraq poses to America, moreover, it is the immediacy of that threat.
An international court of justice to adjudicate and punish acts of genocide might be a fine idea. But we already have laws against preemptive and/or aggressive war, which we seem perfectly willing to bat aside if it suits our purposes. Note as well that America has consistently undermined the World Court by insisting that no surrender of American soveriegnty will be permitted.
Without American recognition of international law, without an American willingness to defer its judgement in favor of an international one, this is nothing more than sanctimonious posturing, and will be seen as such by our enemies and potential allies alike. The threat of war with Iraq did not originate in the UN, it originated in the US. Our Leader has made it abundantly clear that his “my way or no way” approach to international relations has not been modified in the slightest.
“And the death of innocents is never the sole criterion, either. If that murderer is likely to kill 11 more people if he gets away, or if the escape of the murderer encourages other people to commit murder in the expectation that if they are about to get caught they can escape by putting more innocents at risk, it is better that the policeman open fire.”
But that’s precisely my point. You have to weigh the possible loss of innocent life from taking an action and compare it with the loss of innocent life from not taking it. Till now you have been avoiding facing such trade-offs and been asserting that as a matter of principle murderers/genocides should be stopped regardless of what the cost in human life is.
I don’t want to discuss the trade-off in the police example in detail so long as you now accept in principle that the trade-off has to be made.
“I note CyberPundit, that you have never responded to the assertions by myself and others that allowing Saddam to get away with his genocides, development of WMD, etc. will encourage others to do the same.”
First of all I dispute without further evidence the idea that there is a “genocide” going on. The problem is that different people have different threshholds for what a genocide is. I would restrict it to situations like the Holocaust and Rwanda where there is massive loss of life. Clearly nothing of the kind is going on in Iraq right now.
You point out that there is a looser defintion in the Genocide Convention. That’s fine but conventions don’t decide, by themselves, the defintion of political terms. If you insist on using a loose defintion then I would say that you need to distinguish between major genocides(Rwanda) and minor genocides(Iraq today). Obviously in the latter case, outside military intervention is much less justifiable especially when serious collateral damage is likely.
Apart from that you seem to be under the impression that attacking Iraq is going to stop future genocides. The problem is that this is only true if the war on Iraq is being fought as part of a policy to fight genocide wherever it happens. Since that is obviously not true and nor is it believed to be true there is absolutely no reason to believe that it will deter future genocides. Can you give any reason at all why any future genocidal leader would be deterred because of an American attack on Iraq?