Continue to protest while Iraqi's dance in the streets?

Great Debates
101

I’m afraid I don’t follow the point you’re trying to make here. Maybe it’s just the lateness of the hour, but I’ve read the first sentence (making some assumptions about words that appear to be misspelled) several times now and I’m not really getting it.

My response to your post said that you seemed to be lumping a lot of different positions held by various anti-war posters into a single position that was self-contradictory, and that I found that to be disingenuous of you. Your response above seems to say that I should blame anti-war protesters who refuse to support the war unless certain conditions are met. Is that what you are trying to say? If so, blame them for what?

Then you state that there is no difference. Differences arise from two (or more) sets of conditions or states. You further state that the argument is the same. What argument? Or rather, what arguments, since you indicate I should be seeing multiple ones?

Are you trying to say that what appear to be two types of people against the war are really just one type? Those who are just plain against the war as compared to those who are against the war unless certain conditions are met?

I’m befuddled. Perhaps someone else could step in an enlighten me? I’m just not getting what Spite is trying to tell me.

Thanks,
JOhn.

102

The Gulf War, 1991. The retreating Iraqi army ignited close to 700 oil wells in Kuwait. It took nine months to extinguish those blazes.

So, once again, if the U.S. can’t fight every oppressive regime, then it shouldn’t fight any oppressive regime?

BTW, will you be applauding or condemning the U.S. when it does oppose the next oppressive regime? It seems you want it both ways. If it does oppose an oppresive regime, it’s for ulterior motives. If the U.S. doesn’t oppose an oppresive regime, it’s a liar.

103

Hmm, my bad, I got overzelous. It was the Congress that didn’t approve of the Korean invasion. And the UN only passed a resolution after truman declared an intervention with US troops. Not saying they were against it, But Truman kinda got ahead of himself there didn’t he? And in that light, if the Soviets wern’t conveniently “boycotting” the SC then any resolution would have been vetoed no?
I am just wondering how it can be morally just to have situations like Iraq, Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Rwanda (recent reports say over 3 million people have died in the last 4 years due to the inhumane situation in the Democratic republic of Congo) , just because the UN does not deem fit to take action. And somehow it is morally wrong to take action without it’s approval. You do realise that if North Korea invades the South and China choses to veto any reslution, then that “moral justification” would not be there to help the south.

104

If the US goes after a few poor countries with bad regimes to free the people… then I will change my views.

But we all know that’s not going to happen.

Iraq was an easy hit which will pay off very well.

105

Like… Afghanistan?

You seem unwilling to believe that the U.S. can act in its own interest and in the interest of others.

106

ouch. That is ugly taint it?

Name the protestor whose 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.

I was trying to say that , to them, it would only be ok to “liberate” an oppressed people only as long as it is done on their terms. Ie: UN approval, obvious threat to US, etc;. They can try to abuse the current war as commiting attrocities against the innocent as their reasons against it. Yet when it is demonstrated that the innocent would more than likely end up better and happier they still do not support it because their terms are not met.

Sure there are true pacifists out there who believe any war, under any circumstances, is wrong. And I do not intend to argue their position because, t me, it is indefensible. I mean those that opose this war based upon some moral equivelance of how it should have been handled “properly”.

107

I’m sorry. I seemed to have missed the memo that says the USA went into Afghanistan to “free the people”.

Cite please?

108

See my posting three above this.

109

Sam:

Yes. If I were king of the world, I would have stopped this invasion, even with what I know today.*

There’s no denying, of course, that there are have been some important humanitarian gains, at least thus far, in the war, with the overthrow of the odious Iraqi regime.

Dear people of Iraq,

I have heard about the terrible suffering under which you live by the government of Saddam Hussein. I strongly wish that it was in my power to do something about it.

As you know, the United States has attempted to convince the UN Security Council on numerous occasions as to the gravity of your situation, and the threat that Hussein’s government poses, not only to you, his citizens, but even to his neighbors. Years of warnings, political rebuffs, and economic sanctions have proven futile against his government; we have come to the conclusion that the only alternative is armed military intervention, with the intent of removing him from power by force.

However, for better or worse, the United States does not exist within a vacuum. We are part of a community of nations. We have thus far been unsuccessful in our attempts to convince that community of the need for military action. Since we are committed to this community, to the institutions in which it finds expression, and to the principles which animate and preserve it, we find that, for the present, we cannot aid you militarily. As sorely as it grates upon our soul, the US cannot act unilaterally, against the will of the Security Council; our honor, and our commitment to the rule of law, national sovereignty, and international order forbid it. I am sorry.

We will continue to strive to aid the people of Iraq as best we can, and work diligently to convince the world of the sincerity of our concern, and of the need for the community of nations to come together and act with one voice in this question, diplomatically if possible, but militarily if necessary. Until such a time, my heart is with you in your suffering and struggle.

Sincerely,

George W. Bush

President, United States of America

110

Bravo, Mr. Svinlesha!

111

“Was”? You think this is all over? You think that there will be no repercussions? You think that life’s just a happy-ever-after for the people in Iraq from now on? You think the Middle East is just going to forget Bush’s little escapade?

Umm, surely you mean three?

Yes. There was better ways to achieve the removal of Saddam. They may not have suited Bush quite so well, but it’s not about him.

Again the past tense?

Silly question. The millions of Iraqis would not be concerned with what-ifs. They would more likely be questioning what had really already happened. Like wanting an explanation for the support and arms trading that Saddam enjoyed all through the 80s.

112

Yes the statement was hyperbole so sue me,

but now back to you.

You accepted the false reports of confirmation of WMD when they first came out. Did you continue to accept them when they were shown to be lies? What about the second and third time that what the US presented was shown to be inacurate?

Can you point to one credible piece of information that the US presented before the invation that showed the presense of WMD in Iraq?

Let me put it this way then. Did the information the US presented before the war convince anyone who had not already made up their minds about Iraq?

113

Well since you address this rant to me I would appreciate if you could identify which parts of it you think represent my opinion. Do this and I will gladly respond.

114

P.S.

While I’ve got your attention, people of Iraq, perhaps I should also take a moment to apologize for the role my government played in helping the Baath party achieve power over there in the first place, and in arming and aiding Saddam in his “preemptive” war against Iraq – yes, the one we supported then, but condemn now. (I know it doesn’t really make sense to aid a government in a war, first, and then condemn them for that war, later, but hey, I’m American – I don’t have to make sense.)

Anyhoo, sorry about all that. If we hadn’t been meddling in your internal affair in the first place – quite illegally, I might add – we might have avoided this entire mess. But what the hell – shit happens, know what I mean? That was then, this is now. Hindsight is 20/20, water under the bridge, no use crying over spilt milk, etc.

So y’all be good, and don’t forget to vote for Ahmad Chalabi in 2004. Otherwise, we may have no other option but to come over there and the bomb the shit out of you.

Again.

Yers,

Georgie

P.S.S. Thank ye kindly, pennylane.

115

P.S.S.S. I hope you can eat this letter, because “intentions” are all the international community owe you. I hope our letter somehow frees you from tyranny, because as you can see the most powerful nation in the world doesn’t have the courage. We are hoping that our intentions will prevent Saddam from developing WMDs because, after our past failures, intentions are all we can show the world. I hope this letter somehow frees your son, daughter, husband or wife from Saddam’s torture chambers because we are going to hide under our rock now - we can’t help you.

116

Re-read my post. Those first two reasons were not why the war was warranted, but rather in response to binarydrone’s question as to why the US would go after Iraq before it would go after any other country.

What is it with this argument? Why does it keep rolling when it so patently has no merit? Both sides of the argument are faulty.

  1. jshore, I have already listed eight instances from the 20th Century where the US has engaged in a preemptive, unilateral use of military force. (BTW, just thought of a ninth - the Dominican Republic 1965). In this century, it has been more common for the US to attack preemptively than in response to an attack on the US/an ally. The precedent, dangerous or not, has long existed.

  2. The rest of the world is already and has long claimed the right to attack preventively and unilaterally. Within the past decade, the Rwandans and Ugandans preemptively attacked Zaire/Congo, and the Ethiopians the Eretrians. Looking back a little further, we have the Arab nations preemptively attacking Israel in 1973, and the Israelis doing the same to Egypt in 1967.

by spoke-
On to Myanmar!

Who’s with me?
[/QUOTE]

I am.

Easily. Iraq refused to comply with UN disarmament resolutions for twelve years, despite the fact that it lost billions in trade and revenue and 700,000 of its citizens died.

I could present that piece of evidence in any court. Combined with the evidence discovered by UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, as well as the Iraqi refusal to account for WoMD UNSCOM demonstrated that it had possessed, I could get a conviction.
Remember, you can get a conviction for murder without having to produce a dead body.

Sua

117

OK, that’s two of us.

Somehow, I don’t think the Bush team will be joining our campaign, though…

118

That won’t cut it. Your whole argument is based on the premise that Iraq had WMD in some usable condition. None of what you state above indicates that this was true.

Your whole mindset is based on negitive information. “If we know nothing about what is going on then lets invade and sort it out later.” is not what I want my country’s foriegn policy based on.

Of course Saddam was yanking the worlds chain with his excuses and hedging and bying time. Does that prove the US allegations? No way.

119

Great post, Mr. Svinlesha. At least you have the courage to come out and say this. Most anti-war folks seem to have resorted to pointing out any tiny thing that is currently going wrong as an example of how the effort has been a failure.

However, I completely disagree with you. You admit that this was the right thing to do, but value our relationship with the UN above doing the right thing.

As the worlds only remaining superpower, we have an obligation to act. To do the right thing. With or without the UN.

120

As to this quote and similar expressions:
" …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?.."
The thing to stop India/Pakistan and N.Korea/S.Korea etc is the same thing as before the UN existed: fear of failure and retaliation. If those fears were removed, I’d think the whole situation would become much more dangerous.

If the UN refuses to act against a rogue, that reduces the rogue’s fears. Does this make the rogue more dangerous to his weaker neighbors, or less?

I don’t think a rogue fears the UN’s paperwork or disapproval…