I don’t think that’s true, and jibes don’t really help.
Remind me to send a card to all of the families of the brave men and women who have fallen in American peace rallies…
…sorry, another jab…
I think a number of these people lack courage. I do. I think they would rather sit back and enjoy their happy American lives, protest the World Bank and IMF, and let these poor people continue under a tryrannical regime. This issue has been forced on them and they react in the only way they can…mobilizing for inaction…and I think it is because they are afraid to stick their neck out for something.
TVAA: not if one were to call the police and report the situation. If the police do nothing, then I would feel justified in picking up a gun and executing him. Fortunately, I live in a (contrary to international opinion) civilized country; if a homicide and “shots fired” is reported, the police will investigate. In force.
And if said wife-shooter decides, before the police arrive, that he’s going to take out some of his neighbors as well, then again, I would feel more than justified in putting several rounds in his own personal 10-ring.
Well, maybe the 8.
But you know, the thing about cops (at least here in the USA) is that they don’t have to wait for a report of a crime to investigate. If they have reasonable cause to suspect that a crime is in commission, or has been or will be committed, they are empowered to act.
Goo: like you, I have reservations about this conflict. Unlike you, I think I have a better grip on Saddam’s mentality, so once the bullets started flying, right or wrong, I decided it was time to shut up and show solidarity with my country’s armed forces and political leadership.
Because, as I see it, by showing a great deal of vocal opposition and political dissent, we are playing to Saddam’s mentality that if he only waits, domestic and international opinion will force the “Coalition of the Willing” to give up and go home before they get to him. By doing so, peace protestors and political opponents may actually be dragging this war out even longer than it really need be, by stiffening the resolve of Iraqi political and military (often indistinguishable from each other) to keep on fighting.
Whatever reason we are actually in this war for (I say “tomato,” you say “tomahto”), I think that most would agree that it need be ended as quickly as possible. Either W tosses in the towel and withdraws, or Saddam surrenders and organized resistance ceases in Iraq.
W ain’t withdrawing. If he is truly as evil and stupid as pundits and political opponents like to claim him to be (something I’m not willing to grant), he is not going to stop. This is another lapse of logic from the international and domestic left, as well as various peace protestors (often, but not always, one-and-the-same).
W and his administration may also believe that Saddam won’t readily surrender, as well; one of the reasons for their “the war will take as long as it takes to get Saddam” line. It has the virtue of being honest enough by itself, if not in conjunction with the overall situation.
Ridding Iraq of Saddam and the brutal Baath party is as good a pretext for this war as is searching for/siezing any WMDs, eliminating a regime that supports terrorism, etc.
The shortest way to do that now that we are committed to armed conflict is to make Saddam think that he has no help, no support, no quarter that he can turn to for either, and that he is all alone against The World.
It stinks, I don’t like it, I think it’s a tragic comedy of gross errors.
But it is what it is, and must be dealt with in that regard, hopefully pragmatically and rationally. Not from a position of what should have been done, what might have been done, or by dividing ourselves politically when the opposition is counting upon that very thing to save them. See my point about “evil,” “stupid” George W. Bush above.
Let me pose a direct question to the peaceful among you:
Assume that you have the power to call off this war right now. Effective immediately, every last US and British troop comes home. Not another Iraqi civilian dies as a result of the US military. Saddam remains in power (assuming he’s still alive). Every Iraqi soldier and Republican Guard member is sent back to whence he came. We issue a big, fat, “Our bad” to Saddam, and shuffle back home. Do you call it off, knowing that the result is going to be business as usual for Saddam, and that anyone who dared oppose him, said anything bad, or who had the misfortune of being seen cheering in the streets is as good as dead, or worse?
I ask this, because this is what the peace protesters I see on the news seem to want. They want our people to come home, and to let the Iraqi people be. Whatever your stance was initially, I think you’d have to be utterly inhumane to want them to pack up and leave now. Recall what Saddam did to those who defied him during GWI, when we left the job half done. Is there anyone here who would favor that?
I’m sure that if Saddam really tried, he could come up with something worse than plastic shredders.
Jeff
I don’t know. What are we doing to stop those things? Probably nothing, or not enough.
And, I don’t mean this as a knock, I mean it as a serious question:
The big difference is that I am not protesting or arguing for a course of action that supports these things. I am not arguing against stopping those things. I am not arguing to preserve them.
It seems to me that the peace protestors are arguing for an effect that directly preserves the regime of Hussain.
I don’t. I think a lot of them have made sacrifices for their beleifs. I saw that at the protest, and I had little doubt that the majority were deeply committed to what they were doing. I certainly haven’t made any sacrifices for my beliefs in this matter, and I see no logical justification for calling those that have cowards.
Ok maybe I dont understand. What sacrafices do they make. Are not their rights guaranteed by the Constitution and upheld by police and the judicial system?
Scylla you make excellent points, and I agree with you completely. I predict that the more shrill members of the SDMB will choose not to participate in this thread, instead they will continue to insert their pot shots here and there in other threads, while ducking the issue. You will not receive a good response, because there is not one to give.
The 75 billion dollar cost (preliminary) of liberating the 24 million Iraqi people works out to about $3100 per downtrodden Iraqi, or ~$290 per US citizen. I can think of any number of noble humanitarian causes that could deliver far more “bang for the buck.” The Iraqis are not the only people suffering in this cruel old world.
Did you see Fight Club? Do you remember the scene on the airplane where the narator explains how a car company decides if there will be a recall by calculating the cost of the recall against the cost of lawsuits from deaths if there is no recall…
Again, I ask, what would your suggestion be?
I understand that there are folks who are absolutely opposed to war under any circumstances, and that there are some who are a little confucsed as to why this one is in progress. However, based upon protest footage and protest rhetoric (including posts on this MB), my impression is that the main driving force in the anti-war movement is a viceral hatred for GWB and has nothing really substantial to do with the issues of the conflict itself.
Well, the friend that I went to the protest is with is a person I think of as the archetypal modern liberal. He’s worked for several PIRGs and is currently on the energy commission.
He’s a brilliant individual and he could be making the big buckaroos with his skill and talent. Instead he fights for the environment and makes a pittance. I have less than half his talent and dedication and effectively work really only for my own benefit, while he serves to better the world.
Yes, there was quite a few total ridiculous flakes at the protest, and more than a fair share of what looked to be like granola spring breaker types partying for peace. There was also some very serious and committed people. I just happen to disagree with their thinking. There are also no end to historic examples of self-sacrificing protestors like Ghandi and King, and those at Tianneman square.
Finally, if you’re going to call somebody a coward, I think you need a positive reason to do so. You just can’t assume it. I saw no positive reason nor evidence of cowardice.
**
I disagree. TVAA has engaged me directly and fairly, and certainly hasn’t ducked anything. My past experience on this board suggests that my argument will be tested to its limit
We’ll see.
Not to invoke Godwin or anything, but WWII wasn’t cheap and the jews weren’t the only ones suffering either.
Oh, I think you will get people to debate you, but those people are unlikely to be the shrill types to which I was referring. For example, the RedFurrys of the world, to name one, are unlikely to drop in for a chat.
**
It looks like I responded to this while you were typing it. Like I said, why does it matter what this war is about from a propaganda standpoint if the actual reality of the effects are worthwhile?
I dunno about that. But, it’s kind of a different, if related debate than the one I’ve phrased here. Are we the world’s policeman and all that? I don’t know to what extant we can and should do such a thing.
Again, that’s what I’d consider to be an admistrative objection for lack of a better word.
It seems a minor and a small one when compared to genocide.
Nobody seems to be arguing that I’m engaging in hyperbole or that Saddam’s Iraq isn’t so terrible.
How then to reconcile arguing to in effect preserve it?
Point taken, but by devoting all these resources to ousting Saddam, and incidentally liberating the Iraqi people, we’re forgoing the opportunity to foster life, liberty and democratic institutions in other parts of the world.
I, for one, would be more pleased if our announced intentions had some resemblance to our true intentions. Perhaps it is a naive projection of “virtue” into the gimlet-eyed world of realpolitick. Am I given to understand that you regard a program of propaganda, lies and fatuous reasoning in order to foster a war acceptable if it should, mirabile dictu, prove ultimately to have desireable results, even if these results are entirely unrelated to the true motivations?
So you have to be unskilled or dim to be a teacher? social worker? pastor? soldier?
Many people who are talented opt for more meaningful rather than gainful ways to make a living. This does not make them brave. It means they made a conscious choice to lead the life they choose, but not in the face of any meaningful resistance.
Yes, but any time you devote resources to one thing, that precludes you from doing others with those resources. That’s the nature of the beast with anything.
I find it a tough proposition to argue that ending what is arguably the most repressive and genocidal regime in the world and freeing an entire country is a poor use of resources.
There’s a lot of things that could be cut from our resource usage long before that one shows up.
Like for example, we could save 20 billion dollars or so (a WAG) that we spend on hair care products a year and go free Rwanda instead but I don’t hear anybody arguing or protesting that hair care products are bad because of this.
We are not at a point of efficiency with the use of our resources or money that we can argue that Freeing Iraq is wasteful (not when we spend billions on Porn and Pokemon.)
In fact, one could argue that rarely do we get such human moral value from our dollars.