It’s just a ploy to divert the american public’s attention from the faltering economy. Thanks to Al Quaida, the republican position was reinforced. Since we’ve pummelled the Taliban, they need another enemy to defend us against. W is hoping to have this war over & won just before the general election in November of 2004. Then the economy can falter into post-war recession and they can keep blaming the democratic regime of the last decade for it while passing tax cuts & turning a blind eye to the corporations they & their buddies own. Same as it ever was. Either that or invade North Korea to get Cheney elected in 2008. Hell, we’ve already got lots of troops stationed in the DMZ.
I’m just gonna point one thing out and go away:
If we did, in fact, have troops IN the DMZ, we’d already be at war. The DMZ is by definition De-Militarized. That would be an egregious violation on our part and the shooting would begin almost immediately after we crossed into it.
We have troops ON the DMZ, meaning just outside, but definitely not IN. Big difference there.
gairloch:
Interesting mail but I have to come back on you:
"The United Nations is in no position to make laws. We may seek the approval of other nations for political reasons, but there is no ‘law’ that would make unilateral action ‘illegal.’ Unless, of course, one would like the U.S. to be ruled by the ‘laws’ handed down by the United Nations. It makes for compelling rhetoric, but saying that something is, “simply illegal under UN rules,” has all the force of saying that wearing a short skirt is simply illegal under Parochial School rules. This is hardly a legal argument, then, but a biased and emotional one. "
I agree terminology is important and you are probably right I should not have said “laws” but the US have signed up to UN Charter and their proposed action would be in clear breach of their obligations to same and the “rules of the Club”. The US may of course simply do what they want - but they cannot do so and simultaneously start claiming support of UN resolutions as justification - 1441 sets no time limits on inspection.
"… that the U.K. action in the Malvinas was justified in the interest of the world, in general, where Iraq is less of a threat than Argentina was at the time. Certainly Argentina has always been a threat to world peace, we all clearly understand, and those little islands down there at the southern tip of South America were vital interests to the civilized world. Any thinking person would have supported steaming half a navy across half the world to reclaim the Malvinas as a hands down more compelling action than going to war with a nation that has already attacked nearly all of their neighbors. It goes without saying that there is no compelling evidence against Iraq, what with the Argentinian threat all around us. "
I had hoped it self evident that I was not claiming Argentina was a threat to world peace or “the vital interests of the civilized world” (useful definition “civilised” - usually used to exclude any countries that disagree with you) - I was simply trying to suggest they invasion of the Falklands (British territory) was a clearer breach of UN rules and the response of the UK was within their rights under the UN charter. And to avoid highjacking the thread completely lets not debate the territorial rights and history here - the right to self determination of the Falkland people (“British please!”) under UN rules is clear.
“And it is a disgrace for the US/UK to threaten to go to war
unilaterally if the UN do not give them the go ahead - talk about a gun to the head. I could go on but mustn’t leave myself accused of ranting…”
Indeed. It was, if I recall, the United Nations that gave the U.K. the legal sanction and full approval of all nations to go down and teach Argentina a lesson they’ll never forget . . .
The UK never threatened the UN than we would go ahead in any case - the Suez crisis taught us that lesson - and British territory had been occupied allowing UK to cite the right to immediate self defence. Not the case for the US/UK invading another sovereign state.
horhay_achoa I don’t know if age has to do it, but I’m a year younger than you and currently sitting the fence too, although I do vote. I don’t feel I have enough black and white facts (not reasons like “W wants war cuz oil and the economy” and " Sadam is a bad man, we should kill him") to take a strong position on it. I’m not sure I understand what’s at stake now that hasn’t been for the past 12 or so years since Desert Storm’s end.
It’s only by virtue of finding the protesters so obnoxious that I feel a tiny bit more pro-war than anti- I worry about the troops who would return after a war, considering how badly the Nam vets, who didn’t even ask to go to war for the most part, were treated when they came back for taking part in “evil” war(my opinion is admittedly colored by being taken to many “support the troops” rallies as a child). OTOH, I worry somewhat that if this became a major war it could also bring back the draft, since most of the males I care about are of draftable age. I can’t find a position I feel “good” about so far… but that doesn’t mean I won’t keep trying to find it.
Don’t sell yourself short. Communism, to a large degree IMO, depends for its survival on the fact that when people don’t understand something they tend to assume that it’s over their heads. Truth is, that when you don’t understand something, it may be because that something is bull.
A while back I saw William Kristallnacht–oops, was that a misspelling?–on CSPAN debating for war against Iraq. It was this year’s debate at Boston College, or something like that, and his team got spanked. They completely failed to prove solvency; i.e., they could only assert, at best, that the resulting polity would be a polity friendly to the West (i.e. the U.S.).
The point is that if the pro-war side can’t provide reasons you find coherent, perhaps it is because their position is incoherent. I’ve been told that Einstein said that “You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.” I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that the reasons to go to war aren’t nearly as hard to understand as time dilation.
(Like I wrote above, however, it’s not like the anti-war side is really on good ground, either…)
Is there anyone concerned about the fact that there will be a large number of civilian deaths? In the Gulf war, civilian deaths (collateral damage) was estimated in the thousands. And then there was the controversial thesis that post-war Iraq experienced a large number of deaths (substantially larger than deaths due to direct attacks during the war) as a result of the destruction of infrastructure such as water, electricity, medical attention etc.
I understand that no one wishes for war, but could it be that we are de-sensitized to civilian deaths, especially considering the fact that the war will take place in a distant land? Is it moral to take out the lives of say, 1000 Iraqi civilians, if it guarantees a safer future for US civilians? Why is it that the case for such a difficult moral decision is being made with such a cavalier attitude by the administration? Should we not be utterly sure of the repercussions of leaving Saddam in power? I am puzzled and somewhat disappointed.
Do you buy into the theory that economic sanctions are costing thousands of lives already? If so, then war may save civilian lives–cutting off a finger to save the hand sort of thing I guess.
I saw the Frontline World episode where they went to Iraq. I’m no longer convinced that the sanctions are taking a toll on human life. Once again undermining the case for war.
Here is your list: http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=2003022204171941
The cited article is also why those countries support war: the American government has promised each one billions of dollars in revenue and bribery money, not to mention oil trades after Iraq is free from the evil Saddam (and I don’t mean that sarcastically) only to be enslaved by the perhaps even more evil American government.
There’s your support. We bribe for our support. What a moral and beautiful country we are, huh?
I agree with you on most [ (a) some wars are justified and I wouldn’t be one to say “all wars are bad”… just this particular one, (b) Saddam Hussein scares the hell out of me, as well as most of the rest of the world ] of them except these:
-
Iraq has not attacked us. Paranoia is not justified reason for war. Fear is not justified reason for war. “Unilateral pre-emptive attack” is a flowery way that CNN and the American media has come up with to mean: totally unsupported and one-sided. If I suspect my neighbor to kill me, I would call the police: not go and kill him first.
-
Bush IS an idiot. By every interview he has done publicly, he has overly expressed what an idiot he is. The fact that he is ruling our nation and leading us into a war SCARES me. The bigger fact that he is an idiot running our nation scares me even more. He is an idiot, and I don’t think we should listen to idiots.
Do you have any reliable statistics on the toll taken by American sanctions?
I have mixed feelings about this war, but on the whole I do not feel that a war in Iraq is likely to stabilise the situation.
That said, I disagree with the positions taken by many anti-war demonstrators (i.e, ‘Its All About Oil!’) due to their simplistic nature.
I would love to see the demise of Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal dictator, and ideally all brutal dictators would be deposed.
However, I am yet to see a convincing and workable plan for a post-war Iraq.
A US army figurehead may (or may not) face strong opposition from the local populace, or from remnants of the Iraqi Army.
If this scenario does pan out, then occupying forces may be left in the same situation the Russians faced in Afghanistan.
Even if the occupatioon goes smoothly, I would not be suprised to see Iraq collapsing into civil war after occupation ends.
Additionally, it is near impossible to accurately estimate long and short term casualties in the case of a war. Current estimates range from about 10,000 to 100,000 Iraqis dead in the initial offensive, with many more dying due to food shortages, power outages, water shortages etc.
Regarding Iraq’s WMD, there is little doubt that Iraq retains some stocks of bio/chem weapons.
However, Iraq has no motive to use these weapons, for the consequences to his regime if he used WMD upon another nation,
or supplied said weapons to terrorists would be disastrous.
Containment is not an ideal solution. However it is workable, and given the possible consequences of a war in Iraq (especially if lacking UN backing), it is the only acceptable solution.
-Oli
Well, I don’t know if they are strictly American sanctions. But leaving that aside, you can check out the program here and the page regarding the sanctions specifically is linked on that page.
In the program the reporter was shown a pediatric ward in an Iraqi hospital and told how the children were dying from lack of food and medicine. The reporter managed to get a word in with the attending physician who told him that the children were in the hospital for the regular garden variety illnesses that put children in hospitals all over the world. The reporter then managed to get the camera into a pharmacy that was stocked will plenty of medicines. IIRC, they also went to a market that was full of plenty of food.
I haven’t researched it any further than that. There are plenty of links on the Frontline/World page provided above.
There are many reasons Bush would like to go to war with Iraq. There is glory in being a wartime leader. Saddam tried to assassinate his father. His father gets flak about not attacking Baghdad in the first war. The Republicans need distraction from the bad economy and the corporate corruption scandals. The arms industry likes war, and the oil industry wants their hands on Iraqi oil. None of these are reasons the American people or other people around the world should want war.
So Bush had to come up with an excuse. Knowing that just the mention of Sept. 11 gets everybody in a panic, he played the terrorist card. Saddam will give weapons of mass destruction to Bin Laden’s boys. He talked about giving terrorists nukes. Here we are six months later and there is still no hint of such a connection. Bin Laden has been an enemy of Saddam and still is. As far as I can tell Saddam has never given so much as a bullet to Bin Laden’s people. Iraq almost certainly doesn’t have nukes and probably doesn’t have any chemical or bio weapons that lots of other countries don’t have.
Bush’s reasons for the war are completely phony. The inspections violations were brought up after the fact as an excuse to get other countries to sign on, but the reality is that the situation hasn’t changed in 12 years and Saddam hasn’t been a threat to anybody. War is far too costly in terms of lives, economics, and world opinion. It is a terrible idea.
Kudos toBullFighter!! His concluding paragraph (above) is especially telling and cuts to the heart of the matter. So much so that it is difficult to add to or expound on his reasoning.
Except for the fact that we are being led down a "rush to war’ by a person who makes statements such as these(which if it was not so serious would by laughable):
**I couldn’t imagine somebody like Osama bin Laden understanding the joy of Hanukkah." —George W. Bush, at a White House Menorah lighting ceremony, Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 2001
“I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport.” —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2001
“We are fully committed to working with both sides to bring the level of terror down to an acceptable level for both.” —George W. Bush, after a meeting with congressional leaders, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2, 2001**
For more of the above go to: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms2001.htm
The world has changed drastically in the last 2 years. Terrorists have become bolder, more ambitious, and much more deadly. While the link between Saddam and Al Queda is tenuous to the best of our knowledge at the moment, I do not trust the U.N. to protect American interests and lives.
I have little doubt that sooner or later he would fund and/or supply a major attack against the U.S. or Israel. We can either sit back and wait for that or we can take action to prevent it now.
It will certainly be much easier to deal with Saddam now than it would if he was given more time to develop weapons of mass destruction. Witness the current state of affairs in North Korkea.
Fredge: I disagree with your analysis in a number of ways.
First, the world hasn’t changed drastically in the last two years, except perhaps for the American economy and American hysteria about terrorism. Terrorists tried to blow up the WTC in (I think) 1993. They bombed American embassies and the Cole and other targets, so terrorism is nothing new. The WTC bombing was devistating because we had a huge security loophole involving passenger jets, not because terrorists had greatly increased their strength. That loophole has been closed. In addition, unless the whole Afgan war was a waste of time, we have severely damaged their resources.
Second, I totally doubt Saddam would aid an attack on the United States, since if we knew of his involvement, we would certainly attack him, and this time we would have the cooperation of most of the world community. To the extent he has any WMDs, he would actually be more likely to use them against the Muslim extremists who would dearly like to take over his country.
Third, I don’t have the impression Saddam is making any significant progress over time in developing WMDs, and inspections are making it that much less likely that he will.
After the WTC attack, we attacked the Taliban and Bin Laden’s terrorist camps. Generally we handled that pretty well. We had widespread world support. People, including most Muslims, recognized that what we were doing was a legitimate response to a real provocation.
Now we are about to undertake an attack that has virtually no justification in terms of our own security and but has numerous likely ulterior motives. Thanks to Bush, anti-American sentiment is probably now at an all time high around the world. There is nothing that strengthens anti-American terrorists like widespread hatred for the United States. It makes it easier for them to get suicide volunteers, easier for them to get money and weapons, and less likely that people aware of their activities will turn them in.
Like you, I don’t want to die in a terrorist attack, and I feel Bush is making that more likely, not less.
I’m sorry, but this statement is repeated quite often by people trying to make Saddam look less of a threat. I find it quite illogical. Technically speaking we are already saying we have found out about his involvement. A large majority disregard that and so does Saddam. So it stands to reason that if we find him involved in some other way, Saddam will just deny it, give the minimum amount of effort to mollify his detractors and still go on his merry way. He’s been doing this for 12 years running. He doesnt believe that the US or anyone will attack him. He’s practically double daring the US to cross the line in the sand because he fully believes that he is protected in some way. This is from a man who believes he won the first Gulf War. Why does he think that? Because he is still alive.
My apologies for not responding earlier, however, Gairloch did answer your reply to me with much the same sentiments that I felt, so I will reply t your reply to him.
The US did agree to all the “rules of the club” except for the ones that violate or conflict with the constitution of the US. One conflict would be to force the US to act against its best interest of be governed by laws not made by the US congress. The Bush administration thinks that allowing Saddam to disregard UN resolutions is a threat to US interest. The US has the best intelligence gathering network in the world and the US president is constantly updated with that intelligence. I tend to believe him when he says he has proof. I dont care whether he shows me now or later, just show it to me eventually and it had better be incontrovertible.
As fas as not following UN resolutions. If the UN sets forth 12 years of resolutions and were ignored by Iraq but forces the US to conform even when its leaders have proof of Iraqs threat, than that would make the UN 'Irrelavant" Then it may be time to start a new more effective club.
Lets see… The UN approves of a war about a despute over a tiny little island with under a thousand civilian lives at stake but will not go ito war where several hundred thousands of civilains are oppressed, killed, tortured and has proven to be a threat not only to its neighboring countries with its stockpile of germ and chemical weapons but a case has been made that it threatens the entire world thru its support of global terrorsim. And you wonder why the US and the UK (the prime targets of this global terrorism) want to bypass the UN to safeguard its citizens from an impending attack?
In historys past before 9-11, the US was prepared to take the first blow before striking back. Embassies can be taken over, barracks blown up, military operations be ambushed, ships be attacked, and servicemen lives be taken by the score and hundreds.
This all changed when civilians come under attack first. It would be immoral to allow that to happen again when it can be prevented. A preemptive strike disables the ability to do that, at least for that localized aspect of it. the US cannot wait for the first strike anymore. It will now strike first when threatened. The message is now, “Dont Thread on Us”.
X~Slayer said
You have still not given me any reason to think Saddam is any threat to the United States. What is this “involvement” you think we have found out about? Involvement in 9/11? Even Bush has never claimed that. Involvement with Al-Qaeda? As far as I know nobody anywhere ever suggested this until Bush came up with it out of the blue about last September. If Bush had any non-trivial evidence to back up the idea that Saddam has suddenly become friends with his old enemies, he certainly hasn’t presented it. As far as I can tell, people only believe it because Bush says so. Since he is a politician who gains personally from having a war, his say-so counts for little. It is all the more clear that he has no evidence because if he did he would be more than eager to tell us and the rest of the world what that evidence is in order to advance his own cause.