Spite, there are a lot of different arguments being presented in this thread, and for anyone to lump all posters in a certain camp together is disengenious (or however that word is spelled). You cannot legitimately claim that any one anti-war person holds all of the beliefs mentioned. You cannot claim poor logic on the part of your opponents and then exhibit even worse logic on your part.
Can you show me the post where a single poster claimed:
While you’re at it, could you restate the following? I can’t follow what you are trying to state:
Psst, burundi, you’ve long since missed the boat on worrying about a preemptive strike precedent. Here is a partial list of incidents were the US initiated military action:
Grenada
Kosovo
Panama
Bosnia
Libya
Innumerable incidents in the Carribean from 1900-39
Somalia
Haiti
It has long been a policy of the US to strike preemptively, if deemed necessary.
Your facetiousness is duly noted. I will now respond to someone who actually wants to discuss the issues.
by Binarydrone
Are you stating that it is the goal of the Bush administration to improve Human Rights around the world, and that Iraq just happened to be a good place to start or do you believe that Iraq was a potential threat to the safety of America as a nation and that the liberation of the Iraqi people is a happy side effect?
Failing that, do you think that it was a combination of these factors and that there is nothing more to it than this?
[/QUOTE]
No, I do not believe that it is the policy of the Bushies to improve human rights around the world, much to my chagrin. I do, however, believe that a policy of preemptive action will always have the effect of improving human rights.
Why? Simple reason - the truism that democracies don’t attack each other appears to be actually true. Countries that represent a threat to the US, its allies and its interests are also countries that suppress dissent, oppress its people, defile human rights, etc. Further (and I think the US, even the Bushies, recognize this now), the greatest guarantee that a country will stop being a threat is if a democratic government is established there.
Call me a pragmatic romantic. My greatest hope would be that the world would get together, through the UN or otherwise, and decide that it was actually going to enforce the Convention on the Prevention and Prosecution of Genocide, the Human Rights Convention, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, etc. I want a world policeman that would intervene when a country is oppressing its people.
But I recognize that that ain’t gonna happen soon. So I hitch my star to what policies are actually going to occur that will have the effect of improving the situation in at least some places. And, right now, that’s the preemptive doctrine.
And yes, the preemptive doctrine has huge problems, part of which is that it increases the risk to US civilians from terror attack. But I don’t think it is moral to stand aside and do nothing when you can act for fear of harm coming to yourself from such action.
This to me is just about the most illuminating thing that I have heard from someone about this issue since the whole thing started, and crystallizes for me a lot of what has been bothering me about it for a long while.
Because, see, while I am very Left politically, I am not what you would call a Pacifist. If I can think of one condition that I would pick in which the use of military force is justified, it would be the enforcement of Human Rights, and the removal of those that abuse. But, I become really nervous about these things being done without the consensus of the other democratic counties.
The fact that we are alone in this and that we followed a process to get where we are now that is arrogant and unseemly is very problematic.
Military action is what it takes to remove Saddam and his regime. There are no peaceful alternatives. Even assasination would not remove his brutal regime from power. His sons are considered even worse by most people in the know. Again; there are no alternatives besides military action to remove Saddam. You, who do not support military action, support Saddam staying in power and commiting his attrocities. Simple enough?
jkusters
Bame the poester who’s position is against the war has somehow posed a different arguement than they do not support the war unless certain of their situations are met. Regardless of people actually being murdered and brutalaized by their dictator, name one who has voiced support for an action that would remove Saddam and stop what has been going on. There is no difference. The arguement is the same.
And to restate my point;
Saddam ruled Iraq with a totaltarian government. Killing , maiming, and terrorsing the iraqi people. You who do not support this war because of Iraqi’s dying are not stating the obvious that Iraqi’s die because of Saddam every day. That more actually die by murder etc; because he has been staying in power. Because your touted UN mandate has not blessed an apropriate action against him. That mandate does not make the removal of Saddam any more just. As a matter of fact it is more just if we had to wait another single day for the mandate.
over 500 children died (daily IIRC) because of malnutrition and abuse in Iraq. Yet in the area where Saddam has no control of such infrastructure to curb it , like oil for food in the Kurdish territories, that nuber has been reduced dramatically. So much so that it is proof that the entire war itself may not kill as many Iraqi’s that on day or week under Saddam’s benevolence has subtracted.
So those that say they do not support the war because of the loss of innocent life, are belaying the fact that more die without the war. So therefore they support status quo without an alternative. And they support his actions when they are against the actions to remove him.
Honey. Honey!!! C’mere. See, I told you I was illuminating.
God yes. Bush and his cronies screwed the pooch royally on the diplomatic front. I mean, how hard is it to convince people that it might be a good idea to get rid of a man who, through wars, defiance of international mandates, and internal repression, had caused the death of 1.8 million people and who, on top of that, most likely had WoMD and had used them?!!
Only a moron couldn’t make a cogent argument.
But that doesn’t change for me the fact that ending Saddam’s repression is the greater good. So, come 2004, I’ll thank Dubya and vote for whoever is running against him.
My bad, I guess that you could say that our president had a clear global mandate to do this much in the same way that he has a clear mandate form the voters to hold his current job.
Really, no one is fooled by this Coalition of the Willing nonsense. Fancy names and rhetoric do not reality make. I could start robbing banks and stop paying taxes and call it Operation Enduring Financial Freedom forBinarydrone, but I would still be robbing banks and not paying taxes.
Resolution: Those one the anti-war side will refrain from claiming that Bush is only doing this to distract America from a bad economoy and those on the pro-war side will refrain from claiming that international credibility comes from publishing a list of countries who don’t actually object to the war as long as they don’t have to do anything.
I was against this war before it started, and back then I thought it would be easier than it actually was. As people have pointed out, now comes the hard part.
If the USA-UK bi-alition can turn Iraq into a stable, functioning, reasonably democratic country in the three months that they claim the troops will be there, I will vote for George Bush in 2004.
My prediction is that we will be faced with the choice of whether to keep troops on the ground to keep the peace, keep the Kurds from seceding and to enforce government mandates. If we do, then we look like imperialists and our troops are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. If we don’t, then we leave Iraq to crumble into chaos and violence like Afghanistan.
Keeping troops on the ground will cost money and possibly cost Bush the election. Not keeping them on the ground will cost the US it’s last vestiges of international credibility as our promises of human rights, democracy and noble ideals evaporate.
And Afghanistan hasn’t sunk into chaos and ruin, it was already in chaos and ruin. We merely trimmed back some excess population, and installed a pefectly decent fellow as Mayor of Kabul, right after we delivered steamer chests full of hundred dollar bills to his sworn enemies.
Yes, I would stop the war as it happened. I would stop it until we could get UN approval. If we couldn’t get it, then oh well. You question shows that you believe the war has proven itself to be a good thing. However, anyone who takes the celebration of Iraqi’s at Saddam’s apparent ousting from power to mean that the war was a good idea is ignorant of both logic and historical precedent.
How would I explain it to Iraqis? I don’t need to, I don’t believe they really wanted to get bombed and invaded. Read the dear_raed weblog(http://dearraed.blogspot.com) for insight from a Baghdad resident.
OK, I’ve answered your questions. Let me ask you how you would explain to someone who has lost their children in the bombing that this needed to happen?
Why is UN approval so holy? The action would have been exactly the same. The deaths would have still happened even if the UN ok’d it. The UN is not a sacred body with powers beyond what a nation-state has. As a matter of fact it depends on the US to enforce it’s will on such matters. If the US is unwilling the UN is only a sounding board.
The approval of the UN does not save lives, nor does it free people. It is the actions of the countries that chose to do what it can that does. I say “oh well” when the UN decides to sit on it’s ass.
I just hope Bill Clinton was at least half wrong about this war.
He predicted (correctly, it seems) that the shooting war would last less than a month.
He also predicted that a teetering Saddam would be more likely to turn over to terrorists any chemical, biological or nuclear materials in his possession.
In this instance UN approval would have been welcomed because it would have gone some way to dispelling the very prevalent idea in the Middle East that America is simply looking to behave like a big, bad Imperialist bully throwing its weight around for the sake of money or oil or what have you. The more multilateral our approach could have been the better.
Another reason for getting U.N. approval is that the U.S. is setting a dangerous precedent. If we claim the right to striking preventatively and unilaterally, what is to stop India from claiming the same when they attack Pakistan…or vice versa, or North Korea when they attack South Korea or else…and so on? It is not in our best interests or the best interests of the world at large to be encouraging vigilantism by practicing it even if we are doing it against a very bad actor.
We are not talking about being better way. The attitude posed by ** Avumede**, and others, is that it should be the only way. If they had their choice, it would not have happened at all considering the UN refused to want to do anything.
That red herring has been beat to death. There is no precedent being set here today. The US, and most other western nations, have had the policy of pre-emptive action for centuries. No nation has ever attacked the US since 1941. Every military action since then has set a “precedent”. The UN did not ok Korea. the UN did not approve Kosovo either. So their lack of approval on this instance is not a precedent either.
Although it may sound good to paint GW as the ultimate parriah by doing the evil none has done before, it is simply untrue.
They had to cancel days my daughter can attend school because they lost funds. They are on the brink of canceling a science class scheduled for the summer due to lack of funds.
The US people are out of work and hungry.
Watching 300 or so Iraqi’s jumping on the statue of Saddam after the US army pulled it down doesn’t change my mind considering I just saw a clip of tanks rolling through the streets of Baghdad while Iraqi’s threw rocks at them.
This war was for oil, money and power and it has ZERO to do with the people of Iraq, they are just nice political cover.
I am so sick of hearing people say how the US is liberating Iraq. BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT. If this was the case why did the army make a bee-line for the oil fields right after crossing the borders?
No,. I do not change my mind about the war. The US has no business invading a country that is not a threat to itself.
If this war IS about saving people from big bad regimes, I better see the US army hit a number of other countries in the next year or two. If the US is a TRUE liberator, then free all the other people being oppressed. If the US doesn’t do this, then the USA lied.
Facetiousness aside, I’m still having trouble understanding how the first two reasons for war are warranted. If those are sufficient reasons, would you object if any country that has long standing issues with another country attacks them, as long as they are militarily superiour and could say, “why not?” That seems to be what you’re saying. This is an issue that I feel needs to be discussed.
My greatest hope would be that the world would get together, through the UN or otherwise, and decide that it was actually going to enforce the Convention on the Prevention and Prosecution of Genocide, the Human Rights Convention, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, etc. I want a world policeman that would intervene when a country is oppressing its people.