Saddam does torture children routinely. So, what is intended to be an anti-American analogy is actually a brutally real reason to overthrow Saddam by force.
Should we wait until Saddam has nuclear weapons? Then he could kill millions of Americans in the war, while we killed millions of Iraqis. That’s the reallity of a “fair fight.”
"As James Longstreet said as the remnants of his corps drifted back from the Union center on the third day at Gettysburg, now is the time for good men to stand together. And so we must , not as unthinking flag waivers, not as the mindless devotees of what may be a foolish cause, but in order to try to make the best out of this adventure in foreign policy and its aftermath.
"
That has a nice ring to it Spavined, but how you do you distinguish between censoring your own dissent and better judgment for mindless reasons (as “unthinking flag waivers”), and for allegedly thoughtful ones (“to try to make the best”)? I mean, what are you suggesting? Should the substantial number of people in this country, and huge majority outside of it who oppose Bush’s destructive policies just stop in their tracks and find ways to support him? By not eating french fries perhaps? 
What would that amount to anyway? It’s not exactly as though the man is into power sharing or compromise. And we had the opportunity to hear his eloquent thoughts on democracy after 2/15.
“Should we wait until Saddam has nuclear weapons?”
Of course not, december, as you well know. Or do you only register the content of other people’s posts long enough to fashion reflexive replies, as though you’d just come into the debate for the first time every time you post.
All other excuses proven to be baseless, the hawks are reduced to one: Saddam is a very bad person. As a statement of fact, this is irrefutable. As a basis for war, it is gibberish.
We must first resolve the debate over whether or not we are empowered and committed to ridding the world of evil dictators. If we are, history will show this is a relatively recent development of stern morality on our part. In nations as in people, such epiphanies are rare, and suspect.
Where was this delicate moral sensibility when we installed Pinochet in Chile? Where was it when we supported “anti-Communist” monsters in Central and South America? What divine ethical guidance moved us to install the Shah of Iran, a man for whom the word “ruthless” might well have been coined?
Well, thats the past, isn’t it. We are the new! improved! USA, led by a man who has the direct guidance of God, who respects the theological subtlety provided by Bob Jones University and the humble Christian wisdom of St. Jerry of Lynchburg. After all, its right there in the Bible, about how we are to rain fire on Saddam and Gonnorhea! (Note to self: check and see of the clap can be weaponized)
Last night, on Mr. Moyers show, I saw what may well be the smartest woman in America. Connie Rice should sit humbly at her feet for instruction. Ms. Tuchman Mathews, who I presume is a direct descendent of the previous smartest woman in America, the esteemed Barbara Tuchman, hit every nail precisely on its head.
Her best point (and a hard choice that is, amongst so many) is as follows: of course we will win, that’s not in doubt. But the responsibility will be entirely ours, all the consequences that flow from this will be entirely ours. Having brushed aside the opinions of the world community and rendered the UN moot and impotent, with what shall we replace it? Shall we continue to purchase our allies on the open market whenever we require them?
She further notes than “Anti-Americanism” has become an issue in major elections recently, and the anti-US side has prevailed in every instance. This is as grim a portend as can be imagined.
Certainly we can remove the evil, evil Saddam. And replace him with what? Our Leader’s fever dream is a democratic Middle East. What he fails to recognize is that the electorate of these newly coined democracies will have but one common theme: they will universally hate our guts. And having scorned our allies and rudely pushed aside the UN, we will have only ourselves to blame. A more certain recipe for disaster is hard to imagine.
She further notes that if we had stuck with disarmament as our goal, we would likely have prevailed. Saddam is a cynic and a “control freak”: in order to remain in power, he would blow GeeDubya in Macy’s window at high noon, and have it televised by Al Jazeera. But as soon as “regime change” becomes the coin of the realm, all bets are off. Notions of exile are ludicrous, Saddam would never, ever trust his life to another. What assurance could he possibly have that Qaddaffy Duck, for instance, wouldn’t immediately hand him over to the US? By the same token, Saddam would never hand over WMD’s to Islamic fanatics who he cannot control.
It will happen, december, you can start working on your “I told you so!” post right now, have it polished and ready. Our Leader will come galumphing back with Saddam bin Ladens head on his vorpal blade, our beemish boy. But we had best have our victory parades quickly, for the bill will come due.
And its gonna be a doozy.
Latest on the demonstrations.Hope springs eternal,
The point is not to “rally ‘round the flag” and support the President in this foreign adventure no matter what your personal judgment may be. The point is that these exchanges of accusations of stupidity and cupidity are not helpful. It does no good for me to climb up on my high horse and shrill that there is no difference between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler, or that all liberals hate America. We have got ourselves a problem here–our nation seems intent on an armed conflict that a fair number of Americans think is folly and that has scant support from other nations. It is time to pull in the partisan horns and rationally think about what will follow this demonstration of the expanded Monroe Doctrine? How do we go about promoting a stable Middle East short of heaving a cruse missile down the throat of anyone who so much as makes a peep? How do we promote an accommodation between Israel and the Palestinians? How do we make sure that some tin-pot dictator or holy roller does not initiate a nuclear exchange?
The time to beat each other over the head about the wisdom, morality, legality of an invasion of Iraq is long since gone. There has been nothing new on these boards for a couple of weeks. The whole exchange of gratuitous aspersions has gotten tedious. The President is going to do it with or without the UN, and maybe without the UK and Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It is pointless to argue whether it’s a good idea or not, whether it is justified or not. The depressing fact is that it is going to happen. The question is now what do we do after the dust settles.
Who do we bully? We stand up for the little countries that get picked on like the muslims in kosovo and Serbia. We stand up people who are too weak to defend themselves. Look at all the money and food we send around to world to feed and help people. We are good people in the usa. If we war it is just.
If standing up for yourself against a country that funds international terrorism and tries to kill an ex-president is concidered being a Bully I guess I am one.
Give human shield pieces a chance.
Please don’t tell me you believe all this jingoistic rah-rah nonsense. We’ve supported coups in Guatemala, Haiti, Boulivia, and El Salvador because their existing governments weren’t supporting US business interests. We’ve give military and financial aid to repressive governments in the Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Kuwait simply because they support our policies. We’ve threatened sanctions against New Zealand just because they went against US interests and wanted a nuclear-free Pacific. We’ve vetoed UN resolutions that affirmed human rights for Palestinians, offered aid to repressed people in South Africa, and a condemnation of Israel for hijacking a Libyan airliner. We’ve armed and trained government death squads in Guatemala, secretly bombed Cambodia, supported a dictatorship in Spain for 35 years, installed a puppet government in Iran, and trained the contras on the best way to massacre civilians and torture enemies. References here.
I mean, geez, no country is perfect, but using mindless patriotism instead of constructive criticism is not the answer…
It is probably true that I am not as learned on political history and policies both past and present as one should be to display or push an opinion on this situation. In fact much of what I “know” has been collected from the media (tv radio paper magazines) and I do not trust much of what I read… but read on in the hopes of knowing something. The only things I can say I THINK I know is that we ARE going to war and that Saddam has PROVEN himself to be brutal (even to his “own people”) manipulatively sneaky, dangerous and opressive as well as bluntly ignoring the resolution enforced upon him not by the US but by the UN. Using logic, thought and history of Saddam, it seems that his recent “cooperation” is nothing but a show for the people and countries who do not want a war. I do not want a war, but at the same time I fully admit that I do not have enough knowledge to advertise an opinion on what is “right” or “just” and what is not. That is the problem I have with the anti war protesters. WHY do they fight so hard against the war and WHAT makes them think they KNOW enough to protest, WHO did they vote for because that is when our voices mattered most (or were supposed to) and WHERE did they get all of their knowledge from. Don’t we have to believe that our president loves his country and wants the best for it (I did not vote for him though), and isn’t it true that we have no choice in this matter? And don’t we also have to admit that Bush’s KNOWLEDGE of what is going on over there is far more accurate and detailed than what “we” know??? As well as, Isn’t it true, that for so many reasons, Saddam has just got to go? I am so confused by both the world’s opinion, our prez opinion and even my own…Knowlegeable help requested please and where do you find truth in all of this!!!
I can understand your confusion, even though I don’t share it. I dont think for a minute anyone is claiming that Saddam is a good man, or even a merely bad one. And if that were all there was to it, there wouldn’t be anything to think about.
But first you have to decide: will America be judge, jury and executioner on an international scale? Have we earned such a position? Can we? Can anyone?
If such a position is to exist, shouldn’t it be something international, something outside the will and determination of any single country? If not the UN, who?
**Spavined Gelding **: “The point is that these exchanges of accusations of stupidity and cupidity are not helpful. It does no good for me to climb up on my high horse and shrill that there is no difference between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler, or that all liberals hate America.”
Well you won’t get any disagreement from me there. But then again I wouldn’t have bothered investing time in that kind of debate even if the subject were a tax cut or the fate of Social Security.
“We have got ourselves a problem here–our nation seems intent on an armed conflict that a fair number of Americans think is folly and that has scant support from other nations. It is time to pull in the partisan horns and rationally think about what will follow this demonstration of the expanded Monroe Doctrine? How do we go about promoting a stable Middle East short of heaving a cruse missile down the throat of anyone who so much as makes a peep? How do we promote an accommodation between Israel and the Palestinians? How do we make sure that some tin-pot dictator or holy roller does not initiate a nuclear exchange?”
Well, yes, it would be nice to discuss all of the latter. And these are all subjects that are being treated extensively in left of center publications; even in the Times to a degree. I suppose if you wanted to have this kind of discussion here you’d have to try to set up a thread for those who have problems with the current US policy but would like to delve into its ramifications. In other words, what you’re talking about wouldn’t so much inolving pulling in one’s partisan horns, as limiting the discussion to those who share roughly the same perspective. And that doesn’t very often happen here where the political spectrum runs the gamut.
Speaking for myself, though, I’m not ready (yet) to give up on “partisan” arguments–if by partisan what is meant is arguments in favor of urging alternatives to this war. Sometimes that involves describing the inadequacies of Bush and other leaders (though hopefully in as constructive a fashion as possible). Until the bombs start dropping I won’t give up the hope that this war might be averted.
Today I took part in anti-war protest in my town and across the street there was a pro-war protest–the first of its kind in the area, I believe. Judging by the number of protesters and the number of honks received by each side, it’s pretty clear that in my town Bush has failed to make his case. Granted, though, the demographics of my town would make that sort of predictable. Still it was pretty uplifting. And I do believe that skepticism and resistance towards this war is more far-reaching than even the polls suggest.
“There has been nothing new on these boards for a couple of weeks. The whole exchange of gratuitous aspersions has gotten tedious.”
Well I’ve been in and out–due to being ultra-busy, though, not to frustration. I’ve found a certain amount of development on this topic in response to various events as they’ve unfolded. There has been plenty of tedium though, isn’t there always?
" The President is going to do it with or without the UN, and maybe without the UK and Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It is pointless to argue whether it’s a good idea or not, whether it is justified or not. The depressing fact is that it is going to happen."
I guess that’s where we disagree. Yeah, I think it probably is going to happen. But I’m not personally ready to think it’s pointless to argue that it’s a bad idea and unjustified. There’s always the chance that someone is reading who, for the first time, sees things in a different light. For now, that’s enough for me. Though I entirely sympathize with anyone who’s had it.
Hmm…
Not only does the OP miss the point of the article, it also misrepresents what most antiwar commentators think.
I have said in a number of my articles that I hope my naysaying about the war is wrong. I hope that the US is right, and it can ride into Iraq and magically rescue the pixie people of Iraq from the Evil Saddam Trollsein and deliver them into a thousand years of peace, just like the Wise Wizard George Bush says we’re going to. That would be a really cool thing to happen, and I wish it could be true.
Back in the real world, however, I look at everything that’s happened over the last fifty years, and look at everything that’s happened over the last two years, and looking at this situation, and I’m honestly not buying into GWB’s fantasy. That’s why I oppose it. Not because I want him to fail, but because I think he will, whether or not we want him to. (and by “fail”, I mean he’s obviously going to whup Iraq’s ass in the short term, but I am very skeptical about what the future may hold after he has done so)
“So, Laura’s in bed, Karl, Colin, Connie, they’ve all gone out to get drunk, so I’m playing around on this computer they gave me…AOL, of course…and I find this place, called Straight Dope. No ones watching, so I check it out. Read this guy with a funny name, Eluci-something or other. Anyway, makes a lot of sense, you know? So screw this war shit, its a bad idea. Gonna get on the phone right now, stand down, every body come home, olly olly ox in free.”
Be better than winning the lotterly.
Gee, Milum, you surely do have a distorted image of what the peace protests were about during the Vietnam War. Your stereotype has nothing to do with the reality. You would be pushing it to find one agitator in a crowd of 1,000 participants. I was a peace protestor. Do you think your description applies to me?
Beagle, yes, by the Summer of Love – which was 1967, not 1968 – we had been in Vietnam for over fifteen years. I was so blinded by jingoism that I signed a petition in support of the war when I was in college. But once I really paid attention, I changed my mind. We called it “consciousness raising.”
Most peace protest marches in the 1960’s and early 1970’s had nothing to do with civil disobedience. For there to be civil disobedience, civil laws have to be broken. Most of the civil disobedience was in the Civil Rights Movement and most of that consisted of simple but determined gestures of pride – such as integrating lunch counters and refusing to sit at the back of a bus.
sumwunsumwer said:
I suspect, although I have no cite, that most people who take the time to get out and march in support of peaceful solutions are very conscientious about voting. As for what makes us know enough to protest, isn’t that a question for the individual rather than a group? If you don’t know but you do care, then educate yourself and continue to do so in the years to come. This is in no way intended to offend you. I’m impressed at your integrity.
Elucidator, you might appreciate this quote from C. Rice last night: “Sooner or later the Security Council has got to act or not act.”
She seems to have a relentless grasp of the blindingly obvious.