d’oh!
…the different groups in Iraq were not capable of living together in peace.
Stunning.
We have a moral obligation to launch a pre-emptive strike on sovereign nation because of fear of what they might due in the future? Damn, I’m glad those sorts of morals don’t guide our domestic policies. Oh, I forgot, the Patriot Act. Never mind.
Um, I didnt say strike, I said supression. If we had been vigilant over Iraq since the first war, we would not be discussing a millitary strike now. And Yes, if we see an aggressor rising up and becoming a threat to the world, you better believe we should act before its too late. Are you saying that SH should have the right to acquire Nukes? Seeing that he controls a Sovereign nation and all…
The problem is that the U.S. is unilaterally making the decision as to who’s a ‘dangerous aggressor’. Exactly why is it totally and completely up to us to determine who is a ‘dangerous aggressor’ to the world? Shouldn’t the members of said world have a say? We do have a ‘right’ as a sovereign nation to try and counter any dangerous aggressor towards our own safety…but Iraq doesn’t pose any threat to us at all on that level.
whuckfistle, I’ve already had this discussion in GD, in this thread, starting where The Ryan had a similar question here.
Feel free to respond to my comments in that thread there, or here.
Essentially, rexnervous, summed up my argument above.
But you are right. You said:
So I ask, when we lead the world, due to our moral obligation, do we also have a moral obligation to make sure they are willing to follow?
They do if they, in any way, support terrorism directed at the US or it`s close allies. We also have to decide when the right time is to intervene, regardless of what the international communtiy thinks. If our own safety is at risk then we should be able to act unilaterally. I believe the direct risk here is the terror link.
OK, whuckfistle, do you have proof of this link with terrorism directed at the US? If not, should we just take your word for it?
Do you think Saudi Arabia has any links with terrorism directed at the US? Should we invade them, too, on the same principle?
So am I to assume you wholeheartedly support the Russian war in Chechnya, and you will wholeheartedly support an Israeli takeover of Palestine?
If we had intelligence that they where a threat. Or are supporting those who wish to do us harm.
Each country (or situation) would be handled differently. Some foreign leaders actually respect the US and have some form of positive diplomatic relationship.
I dont wholeheartedly support THIS (Iraq) war. No, we cant get into every conflict in the world. The war in Chechnya is beyond our direct interests.
I need you people to answer a question. How long of a leash would you be willing to let SH wear? When would you step in with a millitary strike. I don`t have an answer, maybe you do.
I have decided to support my country`s leaders. The timing may not appease everyone in the world or even the in the US. But an antion sooner is less dangerous and easier to expedite than an action later.
You cant make someone a *willing* participant. That like the IRS using the term "voluntary compliance". I will say this; The US cant get involved in every conflict and they can`t stay out of every conflict. This will sound pompous, but we get to pick and choose which ones we get involved in. That comes with the power and influence of being the leader of the free world.
Now, I don`t particularily like the way that sounds either, but that is the way it is.
More later, have to shovel the snow.
As soon as the UN inspectors find a material breach, and the UNSC authorizes force.
I happen to believe that Saddam has WoMD, and given time, the UN inspectors will find some. Patience is a virtue.
Speak loudly, and swing a big stick? Don’t you think we may risk that power and influence if we ignore most of allies, and alienate the majority of the world’s population?
We can’t make them willing participants. And if we can’t convince them that it is in their best interest - maybe it isn’t.
[sub]If I really wanted to upset you, I’d point out it was close to 70 degrees here today[/sub]
If I was confident that the weapons inspectors where going to find everything, then I would agree with you. Why not let troops in there, give them free reign for a month to rifle through the country (unobstructed) and see what they can find. I would accept that as a final solution and an end to the matter.
Of course we`d still have a tyrant as a ruler who kills his own people and harbors terrorists.
They don’t have to find everything, just something significant. Asserting Saddam’s guilt isn’t sufficient, I’m afraid.
Tom Shales, TV critic for the Washington Post, speculated that the reason for this was: Bush was “medicated.” Drugged.
The “get that tyrant out of there” argument is pure BS. We’re happy to tolerate tyrants when their interests are aligned with our own. As for terrorism, Saudi Arabia has much more concrete ties to al Queda and terrorism. China’s totalitarian government has murdered far more of its citizens, and they most certainly have weapons of mass destruction.
Based on our relationships with these countries, the humanitarian angle is transparently insincere. You can’t say totalitarianism is wrong sometimes. You can’t support sanctions against one tyrant’s country and give most favored nation status to another and then expect people to accept your moral authority as a basis for a pre-emptive strike.
You can’t just assert moral authority. You have to establish it by building up a track record of moral behavior. Leaving justification for our morally ambiguous actions aside, the United States simply has not done this and Bush has made no attempt to address questions of this nature. He expects the world to judge this upcoming Iraq war as if it were a happening in a vacuum.
-fh
So, if we can`t do everything right then we should do nothing?
There are other countries and situations that may need outside influences.
The present situation with Iraq has a foundation of UN support and resolutions that date back to the early 90`s that have been broken. Name another country that (currently) has ignored UN resolutions as boldly as Iraq.
Israel.
Well, then, name another one! (Smartass!)
Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever proposed doing “nothing” about Iraq. When it comes to Iraq, we have multiple courses of action to choose from. Invasion is one course of action, which might or might not work. Containment is another course of action, which also might or might not work but, as Bush stated repeatedly in the press conference, has been working fine for 12 years.
I can also talk about Iraq in terms of “something” vs. “nothing” if you like, however. We’re currently fighting a war on terrorism. That’s something. There is no evidence that Iraq is a greater threat to America than many other countries (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Idaho) in terms of terrorist potential. There is little evidence in fact that Iraq is any threat at all. So, if you’re talking about the war on terrorism, invading Iraq is doing nothing. Are you saying we should do nothing about the war on terrorism?
Or to put it in strictly semantic terms, any action does not equal doing something and the decision to not carry out a particular action does not equal doing nothing. Ineffective or irrelevant actions can be nothing, and to refrain from those types of actions can be something.
That said, my main concern is not a US invasion of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. I’m offering my analysis of the reasons Bush has given to justify an unprecedented pre-emptive strike against Iraq. He says Hussein is a tyrant. I say the world is full of tyrants, some of them friends of the current US administration. So I don’t buy “getting rid of the tyrant” as justification. Bush asserts Iraq contributes to anti-American terrorist activity. He offers very little evidence, and no explation for why we are not attacking the countries with stronger ties to anti-American terrorist groups first. As for the UN resolutions, Diogenes already gave you an answer. Israel is a Middle Eastern country that has defied more UN resolutions than Iraq and also has weapons of mass destruction. And considering Bush looks perfectly prepared to ignore any UN resolutions about how to handle Iraq and go it alone, it’s hard for me to believe he cares much about the UN’s authority.
-fh