A question for protestors and others against the war

Great Debates
1

I honestly don’t understand what seems to me to be a pretty big contradiction in the peace movement. When I went to visit a friend in DC we went to the peace protest to see it. At that point a question gestated in my head which has only now really come to fruition.

I’m overdue on my article for teemings and I’m thinking about writing about my experience at the protest.

I didn’t articulate this contradiction at the protest, but I’d like to do so now, and hopefully get some insight.

To put it baldly, I see the peace protesters as those who wish to promote basic human rights and decency. I see them as people who feel it is their mission to do what they can to stop agression and violence, and coercion. They protest for people to save lives.

What seems so very different to me this time is that there is perhaps no people in the entire world who are suffering such violations of basic human rights as the Iraqi people.

Iraq is a rich co
untry whose people are dependant upon aid because of their regime. It is a regime which has practiced genocide upon the Kurdish people within its own borders, killing severeal hundred thousand. People live in squalor and it’s a police state. Torture is the norm. There are documented accounts that Saddam’s people have purchased industrial plastic shredders specifically for the purpose of torturing people. Feet first, on low, they die slow.

By all accounts Saddam Hussein truly is a monster, and his regime oppresses the populace of the entire country where people are routinely and deliberately deprived of the most basic of human rights.

I understand the argument about no blood for oil, about acting unilaterally, about working within the world community…

But, it seems inescapable to me that those who are protesting the war are in actual effect arguing for the preservation of this regime.

If somebody doesn’t end it, it will remain and the repression will continue.

I understand that civilian lives will be lost, and there’s a counter at Yahoo estimating the loss. Last night it was between 500-750 or so.

That’s bad, and more will be lost. But how many lives are being destroyed and lost every year under Saddam?

Removing the regime will reduce atrocities and save lives. it will improve lives. It will greatly reduce or eliminate most if not all of these horrible human rights abuses. It will certainly end the ethnice cleansing.

How can one take a stance that argues to preserve the repression of millions, torture, genocide and the rest of it?

Is not ending it a worthy thing to do?

I know some people we’re just doing it for the oil, or whatever selfish reason, and I don’t think so, but I don’t really know. It seems to me that it doesn’t matter.

To topple the regime and give the opportunity for freedom to these people is in and of itself a worthy thing.

So, if you are against the war, can you tell me how your able to take a stance that argues for the preservation of Saddam’s regime?

2

We’re not. (It’s a stupid question in the first place.)

3

Sorry to be so stupid as to ask.

But, it seems to me that if we agree that Saddam is really bad and I say “let’s take him out,” and you say “No let’s not,” then there is no way around the fact that you are in effect advocating maintenance of the status quo.

4

If you know that the man next door has killed his wife, would pick up a gun and execute him?

If not, aren’t you in favor of murder?

5

I would’ve supported an Iraqi invasion ten years ago to end the human rights abuses. If this war was about human rights abuses I would support it, too.

I would also be inclined to support wars to remove other leaders that are guilty of human rights abuses, but we never really hear about them. I would’ve supported removing the Taliban years before 9/11, too.

The problem is twofold IMO. First, who decides what amount of human rights abuses warrant an invasion. There are some people who think capital punishment is an abuse of human rights, so straight away we have to find an international consensus on what baheviour will incur the leader being removed.

Second, this whole war was sold as a “Saddam has WMD. We have proof. He will give them to terrorists. We were attacked on 9/11 by terrorists. Therefore we must attack Saddam.” it hasn’t a thing to do with human rights abuses. I am against the dishonest propoganda war that was fought prior to invading. I’m sick of the bald-faced lies. I’m sick of the “anything but pro-war sentiments means you are either a stupid “No blood for war” chanter or are wanting to spit on the troops when they get back” approach.

JMHO.

6

Oops. That should have been:

7

It’s a bad analogy because you are describing an event in the past while Saddam’s abuses have been ongoing.

If I saw a man kill two people and get started on a third, I would sure do my best to stop him, and wouldn’t hesitate to use force.

8

Because it’s illegal, or because it’s immoral?

As Goo pointed out, we don’t attack other countries that violate human rights. We don’t have the authority, legally or morally.

The only group that might (and I emphasize ‘might’) have the authority to do so would be the UN, and we essentially ignored its authority while simultaneously claiming its resolutions gave us the authority to act on its behalf.

Terminating Saddam’s rule is a noble end, but it doesn’t justify the means.

9

I think one of the most troubling things about the peace protests (visit www.protestwarrior.com ) is that they call on the USA to preserve civilian lives, not proceed to war and seem to hold the USA accountable for anything that goes wrong in Iraq. Where are the “Saddam lay down your weapons” and “Democracy for Iraq” and “Saddam the Butcher of Baghdad” signs?

Certainly there are 2 or more sides to each conflict. Why do these protestors only demand action from one side, the USA, which is without question the most benevolent of the 2?

I feel that Saddam was emboldened by the media saturation of the protests. The media certainly overstated the protestors case, considering the polls. If there had been no protests, only the warnings of the US government, Saddam may well have taken the entire thing more seriously, disarmed, and avoided the war.

There is no doubt that the Iraqi people are among the most oppressed peoples on the earth. I spend a lot of time in NYC and have the opportunity to relate with many Arabs. Iraqi-Americans, in my experience, want him and his sons out. Other Arabs, again in my experience, fear his designs for the region if he stays in power. Visit http://www.indict.org.uk/ for a look at what Saddam’s regime has visited upon his people.

What will the protestors say when the fear of the regime is completely gone, the population of Iraq embraces the US liberation and Iraqi oil is used to benefit the Iraqi people and not as part of some nefarious plot. In a number of years, when we leave and our job is done, where will these protestors be today?

I seem to have gotten off on a little tear there. Sorry for the derailment. The best answer I can come up with to your question is there IS no argument to support the anti-war position, other than trite Vietnam era retreads that are against war as a rule. They say they are against military action, but suggest no alternatives to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people under the brutal dictatorship. While war is a disgusting, destructive concept, it is the only option left and will ultimately save and improve the lives of countless Iraqis.

10

Are the Iraqi people not worhty of the same civil liberties you enjoy? Will not the bounties of liberty serve them at least as well as they have served us?

i think we can all agree that the Iraqis deserve freedom and release from this oppression. The anti-war movement has no alternative, and by the time they HAD developed one, how many more Iraqis would have been dead?

Action takes bravery, and bravery is something sadly lacking in the anti-war movement.

11

Why does it matter how we label the war. For all that it really matters this war could be about cheese.

That it will resolve and end ongoing and horrible human rights atrocities is the effect of the war, no matter what we say it’s about, isn’t it?

Arguably we’ve done some stuff in Kosovo and Haiti, but I don’t understand why the timing matters. It doesn’t change the basic fact that Iraq’s regime is horrible and inhumane. We are removing it now, for whatever reason.

Isn’t this a huge net positive from a human rights perspective? From the perspective of saving lives?

That’s administration, but I see your point. Still, it seems reasonable that wherever you are going to draw the line, Hussein’s regime is going to be on the other side of it. Genocide has got to be a biggee.

But while I see your point, I don’t really see the administrative side of it as being a valid objection any more than a “no swimming” sign would be a valid objection to diving into a lake to save a drowning man.

Ok. For the sake of argument let’s say you’re absolutely right, and all the reasons that have been given are a bunch of bullshit and lies. Let’s concede that the war has been sold to us through fraud and propaganda.

Why does that matter?
How does it change the actual violations and oppressions? Aren’t they still worth stopping?

I guess I don’t understand how propaganda changes the truth. A rose by any other name, and all that…

12

God help me, I agree with Scylla. My analogy, however, lays with the anti-Apartheid movement of the ‘70’s (well my part was the late 70’s). It was a simple (and literal) black and white issue, either you were against the regime or, by default, you supported the regime (the status quo) – as then, I see no middle ground. For or against Saddam.

Problem for some back then was that opposing the regime implicitly meant supporting the (only viable) opposition, the Communist ANC. Not comfortable, but extreme political situations make uncomfortable bed-fellows (me and dubya, for example).

There is a potential difference now in that some feel the UN offers a middle ground. I tried to accept that but couldn’t because Saddam has repeatedly proven his ability at offering the world community just enough to divide opinion. He plays the UN like a master and I felt I had to discount the UN option because of that unusually skillful play.

Lastly, I don’t even think the Humanitarian issue really counts - it’s kind of like cheating, a red herring, maybe. If I buy a car, I buy it for proper reasons (engine, power, looks, etc) , the leather seats are a secondary bonus – for everyone, this US administration and the peace folks , the people of Iraq (and their suffering) are the leather seats.

13

In order to effectively make your argument, Scylla, you are going to have to make use of the latest in memory hole technology. As Goo noted, this war was not sold to us as a noble endeavor in human rights protection, it was sold to us as a necessary, unavoidable excercise in self-defence. At best, that conjecture is…let us be kind…dubious.

Now, if you wish to frame an argument to the effect that you should like America to become a nuclear-armed Don Quixote, dashing about to and fro and flinging our children into harms way in order to uphold the human rights of perfect strangers…by all means, state your case, and we will debate it. Please be so kind as to state the priorities by which we will make these judgements. Clearly, you are not going to suggest we take them all on at once. So who should be next? China? Zimbabwe? Haiti?

14

To repeat a question that I have never heard answers to from the current protesters:

15

All of you who’re so eager to save the Iraqi people:

Where are you when starvation and genocide run rampant through corrupt African regimes? Where are you when South American countries live in constant fear of terrorism and kidnapping? Where are you when dissidents are tortured and executed in China?

I don’t recall hearing anyone suggest that we invade these places. Why not? Wouldn’t they be better off in a US-established democracy?

16

And where are the “End Genocide in <insert country of your choice here>” marchers?

17

GUILTY AS CHARGED!

Bill Clinton was so fearful of expending any politcal capital that he let the Genocides in Rwanda et al go unchecked, to his and our shame. He even later apologized for not acting.

Should the mistakes of the past be repeated simply because it is how we have done things in the past? I think not.

I really think that people do not understand the level of brutality in Iraq. Below is a quote from the website I posted in an above post. Just in case you did not get around to reading it…

"On several occasions I saw QUSAY SADDAM HUSSEIN walk along the row of cells, open the slot in the door and spray what I believe to be something like mustard gas into the cell…The bodies of the dead were bloated by the gas. They foamed at the mouth and were bleeding from the eyes…The prisoners were screaming. I remember one of them was only about twelve years old. I remember QUSAY shouting something like “Put this bastard in - he’s a member of the family’…The little boy was screaming. He was already bleeding from previous beatings. QUSAY killed him along with all the others…The little boy screamed out “I am sorry, I don’t want to die, I want my father.” QUSAY said, “Your father is in the cell next door”, which was true. QUSAY then proceeded to spray him with gas and he died after about ten minutes of agony. We could hear them screaming… I estimate that QUSAY SADDAM HUSSEIN personally murdered between 1200-1300 people during this period.”

The Iraqi people are DESPERATE, but utterly POWERLESS under this regime. We will be in the right side of history in this war.

18

Or, alternatively, “Support our Troops in Iraq! And Iran! And Afghanistan! And the Phillipines! And Pakistan! And Klanndathu! And Vermont!..”

19

**

Neither. Both. I don’t know. Does it matter? I would hope to hell I’d do it. The reasons don’t matter in a thing like that, do they? If I need a reason how about just because it’s the right thing to do?

**

Adminstrative, right? What does administrative have to do with right?

I haven’t heard it argued that our action is illegal in a credible fashion. I don’t really see how it matters, either. It was illegal to steal slaves and set them free, but wasn’t that a good law to break?

As for moral athority, that’s a toughie. I think the fact that we are capable of acting in such a fashion doesn’t necessary give us athority, but it does give us a measure of responsibility.

Again, if I agree that you’re right it still doesn’t matter. You’re arguing parking tickets and technicalities on one hand and genocide on the other.

I would like to think I’d dive into the lake to save a drowning man even if there was a “no swimming” sign.

20

A.N.S.W.E.R., which is a communist organization, is behing almost all of the anti-war protests.

You will not see these signs because the protestors do not care about those countries. Their sole goal is the weakening on the USA. I would assume you are anti-war because you are anti-killing. These people are not against killing, as they NEVER speak out against Saddams attrocities. They are anti-American. I am not saying that just because they demonstrate against the position I support, I think intelligent protest is VERY American, but because their goal is to harm America.