Baghdad has fallen.
Iraqi Arabs dance in the street.
Saddam’s torture chambers are exposed for the world to see.
Anti-War Protesters still march the streets. Why?
**Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life. Thus people haunted by the purposelessness of their lives try to find a new content not only by dedicating themselves to a holy cause but also by nursing a fanatical grievance. A mass movement offers them unlimited opportunities for both. *
~ Eric Hoffer - The True Believer ***(1951)
Sure they are. At least i would hope so. The fact is they do not care one wit about the iraqi people. If they did they would be celebrating in the street that this war actually did good. If they got their way then the people would still be opressed. They truely believe that this war is wrong tho. If only because the UN didn’t bless it. The Iraqi people are inconsequential in their anti-US rhetoric.
And where was your care and concern for the Iraqi people over the last 3 decades? Yeah…thought so.
For that matter, why did we look the other way for so long at the oppression of Afghan women at the hands of the Taliban? Human rights organizations were basically ignored and told “sorry, not our problem” and Bush said we should not be in the “nation building” business…until Sepember 11th. When, and only when US interests were directly attacked did we get involved to “free” the oppressed. Our care and concern seems to be limited to what directly affects us.
So don’t tell me I’m not concerned about the Iraqi people just because my idea of helping them doesn’t include bombs. You weren’t cnncerned about them at all until US soldiers set foot on their soil.
And for the record, the dancing has stopped. Chaos ensues. Let’s see what the Iraqi people think of us in another month.
You thought what? I cared. But you forgot to realise when you took your head out of your ass for this post that Spite doesn’t fucking make US military action decisions. Now fucking does he? He does however support the action when it is abundantly clear what it will acheive. You apparently still don’t. regardless of the feelings of the Iraqi people.
And since you are on your high fucking horse, tell me oh noble one, how you would get rid of Saddam without bombs? Give me one valid course that would remove him and free the Iraqi’s from his regime without the bombs.
It’s amazing how often the argument boils down to feel good psychology. I remember arguing with my father that the US should not topple Saddam during Gulf War I. I agreed with those on the left, and many on the right. In hindsight, after the massacre of the Shiites in the uprising, we should have toppled Saddam’s regime much sooner. Care? The US troops being interviewed, crying, as the Shiites were being slaughtered within full view of them is scorched into my memory banks.
Caring does not mean having a closed mind to the fact that war is a necessary evil. Sometimes the evil of war overcomes the greater evil of tyrrany and oppression. Obviously, given the carnage, the chaos, and the international bickering, I’d prefer to find another way to get rid of despots. Perhaps a transporter a la Star Trek? I’ve always liked exploding cigars or poison moustache wax. Note: dictators love cigars and moustaches.
*You thought what? I cared. But you forgot to realise when you took your head out of your ass for this post that Spite doesn’t fucking make US military action decisions. Now fucking does he? *
Gee Whiz Spite, such foul language, do you hate Anti-War People? There’re not the Devil you know.
I’m glad I have people to tell me what I think. You see, being a member of the Liberal Lefty Hive Mind, without you guys here, I’d never find that out.
Incidentally, Spite might not make military decisions, but if Spite is a member of the United States of America, then Spite has, along with the War Protesters, a degree of collective responsbility for its actions, just like I have a degree of responsibility for Blair’s actions, which is why I oppose actions I don’t agree with and support actions I think are being overlooked.* It’s the price Spite and myself pay for sleeping safely in our beds at night.
Some of the marchers are true believers. I’ve known them all my adult life. If I go to a protest march, I know for sure I’ll see Ted, Mel, Susan, several others. They’re always there, I’m sometimes there, as I am on the conservative wing of the extreme left.
This time was somewhat different. Lots of people looking sincere, and a little sheepish, as if they never imagined they would be doing something like this. God bless 'em, they’re the best hope our sorry Republic has.
But yeah, anybody whos out marching now is probably more dedicated to the process than the result: the war has happened, try as we would, we couldn’t stop it, might as well save our ammo for the next outrage. Which, if history is any judge, won’t be that long in coming.
Be that as it may, IMHO anyone who truly believes that this callous excercise in power was motivated by a noble and selfless dedication to the human rights of the Iraqi people has gone quite beyond True Believer, out into the Faith that Surpasseth All Understanding.
And you, oh Spite-ful one, forgot to look around and realize that this is the Great Debates forum, not The BBQ Pit. Therefore, this type of behavior is not allowed.
I have not once heard an anti-war protester talk about what a good guy Saddam is, or how he should stay in power. (Nor, to make the sword cut both ways, have I heard someone in favor of the war talking about all the oil we’re going to get from it.) Most people who are against the war honestly do care about the people of Iraq (in case you weren’t listening, one cornerstone of the opposition to the war against Iraq was the concern about “collateral damage” i.e. civilian deaths), and are glad that they’re liberated. The question is, what have they been liberated for? Are we going to rebuild Iraq? Are we going to exploit it? Are terrorists now going to go after American and allied military bases in Iraq because they’re tweaked off at us? What about Israel? For that matter, what about Palestine? Or North Korea? Or…
My point (and there is one) - I am glad Saddam was gone. He was a dictator, and he killed his people, and I’m not arguing that. I’m glad that (so far) no oil wells have been set on fire, no depleted uranium weapons were used, and that though there were casualties, there appear to have been no massacres. It’s just that I’m a little bit too skittish right now to be really thrilled about the whole thing.
Bingo. That is why I am wondering why they do not support said action, and actually asked for a specific on what was overlooked that would have the desired outcome.
David B
Mea culpa.
My appologies Calliope. I crossed a line. But it still stands that the inaction of the military regarding the Iraqi’s in the past in no way reflects my caring or not. But it is your action, and the other war protestors, that reflect how they feel. (wich is probably how I should have said it to begin with, but the affections of the mods can get addictive. )
Well, thank you, Spite, for that. And I admit to a certain testiness that likely came across in my post. It’s just darn frustrating to have so many people equate being against this war with being pro-Saddam or anti-Iraqi people.
Depleted Uranium weapons have been used in this war. Armor-piercing shells and ground-penetrating (“Bunker Buster”) bombs are tipped with DU, and it is also a component of the armor on the M-1 Abrams tank.
Still, I’m as happy as you are about the rest of the things you listed (Saddam apparently gone, no major oil well fires, no apparent massacres) and will add my gratitude that no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons have apparently used – thus far at least.
In my experience, the “anti-war folk” fall into four categories:
(1). Pacifists: These people believe that war is always bad, no matter what the reason. A lot of them believe in the “turn the other cheek” mentality - that it’s worse to commit violence than to endure it. I think these people are true believers.
(2). People Who Think That This War Is Wrong: These people don’t think that war is always bad, but they think that in this case it is wrong/unjust/too risky. Now although you may think that the fact that Baghdad has fallen and Saddam had torture chambers has proved these people wrong, neither of these factors actually had anything to do with these people’s opposition to the war to begin with. They are true believers in their reasons for opposing the war, which it seems are too difficult to grasp for many of the “pro-war” posters on this board.
(3). People Who Hate America: These people are usually found in Asia and the Middle East. (Most of the American peace marchers whom you probably criticise as being America-haters don’t really fall into this category.) These people resent America partly because of America’s politically and economically powerful position in the world today, partly because they’ve swallowed all the propaganda their national media/government likes to spread about how George W. Bush wants to kill off all the Muslims, etc. So I think these people are NOT true believers (at least not in peace).
(4). People Who Think America Is Stepping All Over The Rest of the World: Most of the peace protestors I know in Europe fall into this category. They don’t necessarily believe all war is bad, or even this one, but they are annoyed that America feels it is okay to just invade any nation at will, and then take the self-righteous stance that they only did it for the good of the locals and the world in general. Personally I’m not sure whether I would categorise these people as true believers in peace, necessarily, but perhaps true believers in a better world order…?
Query: you seem to be saying that the UK is at fault for not arresting and trying Mugabe, and that you support such action. There is no UNSC resolution authorizing such action, and such action would take military force.
So A: how is the UK at fault for not taking military action when the UN has not authorized it?; and
B: Would you support the UK taking action to secure the arrest and trial of Mugabe without a UNSC resolution (I can easily see Russia and/or China vetoing such a resolution)?
The UK is at fault for not arresting and trying Mugabe, on the many occasions he has been in Europe, surrounded by a few bodyguards. France, also, bears some of the blame for this, but I will be honest, France looks after their ex-colonies much better than we do, and Zimbabwe is more our problem, our responsibility, than theirs. That doesn’t exonerate them from the inaction which has kept Mugabe out of prison, however.
There are more ways to skin a cat than through military action. That is what you call a false dilemma. We have had ample opportunity to solve the problem before now, and still could, without resorting to war. At the very least, were this issue tabled at the UNSC or in the General Assembly we’d be able to start thinking about this in a clearer way.
The UK would be equally at fault if it unilaterally attacked Zimbabwe without a specific UNSC resolution. However, that is not the only solution to the Mugabe problem (nor, to be honest, is it the best one).
Also: I’ve got a very good, very well thought out reason for believing that War is always bad, no matter what the reason, derived from the works of such thinkers as Thomas Paine (himself no pacifist) and Robert Pirsig.
It’s this simple. I cannot spend your money; I have no right to. I, therefore, cannot sacrifice your life; I have no right to that either. The intellectual freedom of the individual is always paramount, above and beyond any social Greater Good, real or perceived. For person A to sacrifice person B, because of the Crushing Regime of person C, for the good of persons D, E and F is to deny person B’s right to choose the course of his own actions for himself. His right to choose what to do is made by all the other people in the equation, including person C, who person B probably doesn’t like very much. There’s no way to make it right on the level of individuals, and individuals outweigh society.
)