Well, they’d have to find him first, wouldn’t they? After all, OBL is still at large, despite a huge operation in a country with virtually no fire power.
This adversary is certainly more powerful (even if I don’t believe all the claims of WMD’s), and its leader has 20 look-a-likes, and a whole army rather than a band of mercenaries.
This war will not be over in 2 weeks, I’m afraid. I wish it were.
Thanks, Sentient! How heartwarming to receive your welcome!
All the evidence that I have seen from human rights advocacy groups, and from the UN itself, is that thousands of deaths per month in Iraq are practically guaranteed with Saddam in power. It’s been that way for many many years. I haven’t seen any evidence that waiting will diminish his tyranny. And nothing you or Coldfire have said convinces me that a liberation operation would result in more deaths than leaving people at the mercy of Saddam.
My only problem with it is who is doing the liberating. But my vote on that matter is like pissing in a hurricane.
I am also glad you’re back. And I have a question to which I’d be interested in hearing your answer:
Do you believe there is no middle-ground between a toothless inspection regimen and a full-scale invasion?
I think the debates on this board about the war have been uncharacteristically civil for the most part.
Thank you!
By the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, Saddam was required to disarm within 45 days. And here we are. Unfortunately, military dictatorships do not lend themselves to things like subversion or assassination very easily. It’s the nature of the structure. When one node is removed, the entire structure shifts immediately to compensate. What is necessary is destruction of the structure itself.
Libertarian I read a post of your’s somewhere that said you were opposed to this war but most of what you write is countering peacenik arguments. I love it when I can’t tell what someone’s position is - what is yours?
I think I see where you’re coming from, Libertarian, and it’s not the same place the administration’s coming from. You’re obviously more interested in the “Liberate the Iraqi People” angle than the “Rid the World of WMD” angle. My question to you about putting more muscle into inspections becomes meaningless in that light.
Obviously there are a lot of terrible dictators who make their people’s lives miserable. Can I assume you’d support an invasion of any tyrranical authoritarian sovereignty on the same grounds? What do you think about the possibility Iraq descending into anarchy and civil war post-invasion? If that were to happen, wouldn’t we just have been exchanging one horrible reality for another?
Hmm. I just read your OP in the Pit about CNN, and it would appear I’ve misconstrued your attitude toward the war, Libertarian. Sorry.
My position is that it is always a moral act for private interests to liberate people from tyranny. But a government’s only moral action is protection of those who have consented to be governed. Therefore, I support the liberation of those who wish to be liberated, but not by the U.S. military. That military should be used only to defend and retaliate with respect to specific threats to U.S. citizens.
As it stands, Cuauhtemoc’s concern is understandable. The U.S. government is assuming responsibility for people who have given it no consent. As with all government meddling in the affairs of people, there are likely to be unintended consequences.
Still, all that said, given the situation we find ourselves in, I am arguing merely against what I perceive as myopic, jejune, and Neanderthal positions that it is possible to negotiate with Saddam, that an invasion will kill more civilians than diplomacy, or that blame for Iraqi deaths in the invasion accrue to anyone other than Saddam Hussein.
Won’t somebody please think of the soldiers!
[sub]Well someone had to say it.[/sub]
Actually, my sorry ass is under no threat from Saddam.
But I have not engaged in any name-calling.
At least, I don’t think I have…
While the spirit of the OP is one that I share, there are some very important reasons that I will not be taking the offered chill pill.
I think that the main reason is that my experience tells me that this sort of silence is almost always seen as consent by the folks that I oppose. I saw it happen during the first Gulf War, where folks tried to be supportive of the troops and this was seen as supporting the war and I saw it after September 11 when the lefty lobbyists took a break because they felt that further efforts at that time would be inappropriate, only to see their counterparts push harder than ever.
This is not to say that I will resort to name calling and unseemly behavior, but I will not cease in my criticism of our current administration.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for the troops out in the field – they’re living in crummy conditions, away from their home and families, about to risk their lives in a nasty task. All those downsides are precisely why I think they should be deployed only in truly desperate situations.
Securing Iraqi oil fields for American global dominance (and Haliburton’s profit margins) is not it.
Is saving five-to-ten thousand lives per month a sufficient “it”?
It would really be nice if they could give consent without being murdered…
There is actual evidence, somewhere, that Hussein is killing 5,000 to 10,000 people a month in 2003? Can we see it?
Ironic as hell that a thread from milroyj (I can’t remember ever agreeing w/him) to call on all of us to suspend, for a moment our partisan rallying cries gets blindsided by a ‘well, if you really care about the Iraqi people…’ and ‘government vs. private individuals’. It may not be the traditional Dem/Rep crap, but it is indeed IMHO, a diversion of the named intent of the OP, to set aside our differences for the moment and have concerns for all who will be in harms way.
Never thought I’d be saying this, but I’m w/you milroyj on this one. (now, can you for the love of all that’s good and sweet, please get my morning DJ on line w/this so he’ll stop with the b/s that if I’m not saying the pledge of alleigance w/him that I"m continuing to murder Iraqis, support SH, OBL et al and dissing the front line soldiers who will be in harms way? thanks ever so)
Amen, wring (and milroyj). Aren’t there some Dopers in the armed forces who may have to go to Iraq? Or Doper family members?
I don’t feel any anger right now. Just fear and sadness.
I agree with the Saddam and diplomacy bit. But, whether an invasion will save more lives is probably open to question. If we are going to count bodies, are we going to include Iraqi soldiers? Are we going to include deaths not directly related to the invasion, such as the suspension of the Food for Oil program (which feeds ~60% of the people), the destruction and/or lack of infrastructure in a warzone such as general medical assistance etc etc? Are we going to include post-war conflicts, ethnic, and political?
I do agree with the notion that it is difficult to make a case against the invasion based entirely on Iraqi civilian deaths and their general welfare. But, the chief motive for this war has never been the liberation of the Iraqi people. One can be nothing but suspicious of the motives of the US (as xenophon41 wrote in another thread)
And, furthermore, that fewer Iraqis will die during and following an invasion? I’ve seen no evidence of that either.