Yeah, and guess which country he’d hit first, possibly precipitating WWIII? It ain’t gonna be Jordan or Syria.
Mind you, I believe the hawk argument would be “that means he’s holding us to ransom. We therefore have a moral imperative to stop him”.
quote:
posted by mooka
Suppose Saddam does have nuclear weapons. We know he has chemical and probably biological weapons. At the moment he’s not going to nuke anyone or use other WMD because he is rightly scared of the international reaction, because he has a lot to lose.
Suppose he has nukes and say he will nuke Isreal if we won’t let him have kuiwait or saudi arabia. He has plenty of human shields. And a lot of deep bunkers.
There were a lot of people thought like you do in the 30’s about Germany. If we only don’t make him mad things will be ok.
We need the oil in Iraq #2 most oil in the middle east to pressure other countries into getting rid of terrorists in their own countries by cutting off their oil money. See how this works.
Deferring to your military expertise, might I ask the following: Is the true (American) goal of inspections enforcement actually a regime-changing invasion? Or is the mere threat of invasion cosidered sufficient to ultimately cripple Iraq’s military position in the Middle East, leading to de facto U.S. control of Iraqi oil?
The reason I ask is that as of now, I’ve not been convinced that raw war against Iraq was an actual goal. Rather, I thought there were overwhelming economic conditions viz-a-viz terror-financing nations that were the true reasons behind current U.S. policy on Iraq. Many have assumed that Bush himself straight up wants war for war’s sake, and I wasn’t buying that yet because it looks like threat of war might be just as fruitful.
OK, I hear what you are saying. Attact Russia. Yeah, I like it. They have committed human rights violations and everybody knows they have weapons of “mass distruction”. I think you’re on to something here.
Granted there’s the PR think with declaring war on people randomly, but it worked OK in Afghanistan and with the Native Americans in the 1800s so why not with Iraq and Russia?
I believe you misread kplmonkeypants.
The US should have toppled the Iraqi government at the end of the Gulf War. Therefore the US should go to war with Iraq to finsish the business started in 1991.
OTOH, the US stood has somehow muddled through for more than ten years despite the supposed threat of Iraq. Therefore the US should not go to war with Iraq at this time.
Dang, I keep confusing myself.
Seriously, though in repeonse to the ‘We’re gonna invade to take Iraq’s oil’ crowd:
Iraq would happily sell all the oil it could produce to the west, at market rates, if it were allowed to do so. The only reason the bulk of Iraqi production is off the market is the UN sanctions put in place after the Gulf War. Any potential boycott by the major middle eastern producers would have crippling effects on their own economies, which are thoroushly dependent on the flow of oil to the west. Therefore, IMO, occupation of Iraq simply to guarantee access to that country’s oil is wastefull and unnecessary.
**No. Only if the abuses are similarly egregious. You said:
**The U.S. has human rights issues. So does virtually every country on earth. There is a question of degree. You inference was not logical.
May be absolutely true. And even if we have not acted in the past when we ought to have, that still would not mean that there isn’t sufficient justification now.
I’m interested why you could possibly believe containment is a viable strategy–i.e., what about it could prevent Iraq from building its arsenal? Nothing has prevented it so far.
If you read the next sentence you’d realize that kplmonkeypants did not condone war on Russia, rather his idea was “maybe if we offered to help them get their oil they would give us some at a very low rate and we would not have to deal with the middle east.”
Read a whole post before bashing it’s author’s ideas.
If your implication is that the U.S. is now the proposing the same thing, then you and I have different ideas regarding the nature of provocation. Why is it so difficult to remember exactly whose misbehavior created the sanctions that have led to all this tension? Why is it so difficult to understand that those sanctions were not trivial things and that ignoring them is tantemount to provocation?
I could not agree with you more.
I read that as TV Time being sarcastic.
There are a lot of people who wonder why Russia gets a complete pass on Chechnya. Main reason: as a short French general and a mustachioed German dictactor would tell you, attacking Russia is a bad idea.
The Soviet Union used to be able to do anything it wanted, short of provoking a U.S. counterstrike; the same still applies, it’s just that Russia is too poor to meddle much anymore.
my last post was not ment as me saying go and atart a dam war with russia no simple to say hey russia if you need help with mining your oil we will be glad to help as long as we get some at a reduced rate. yes i agree russias interactions with the chechnya were a bit extrem, but weren’t we a bit extrem in the way we treated other countries because of the supposed threat of the spread of communisim(KOREA).
No. For a variety of reasons, any one of which should be sufficient to give pause.
Legal It is a founding principle of international law that aggressive war, even if dressed up as “pre-emptive war” is illegal and immoral. We are more than mere signatories to this, we are the founders and enforcers. After WWII, we tried, convicted, and executed men such as Tojo for precisely the crime against humanity: waging aggressive war. It is we, ourselves, who established this principle as a law for all humankind. Are we now to say that this was intended only as a guideline, to be discarded should it prove inconvenient? Even the Nazis, as vile a regime as ever stained the Earth, went to the trouble to stage a fabricated military attack by Poland.
Civilization entails some risk, and some commitment to that risk. We go about our business, as nations do, assuming that we will not be attacked without provocation, assured that the aggressor will find only enemies amongst the community of nations. We held true to this code even during 40 years of “cold war” with a committed enemy with far more destructive power at its command than Saddam bin Laden ever dreamed of. They did not attack us, we did not attack them, an uneasy peace, as compared to an unthinkable war. We took the risk of accepting the possibility of a first strike, with its horrendous consequences for two reasons. One, the moral one, that to rain death and destruction on a potential enemy was a criminal act, a violation of the laws of common decency that we proclaim to be our own. And second, of course, that a military strike on us would be an act of suicidal lunacy.
Iraq is no different in either of these aspects. Indeed, Iraq has much less capacity to harm America, regardless of hysterical and dire warnings of intercontinental drone aircraft armed with nuclear anthrax. Can anyone in the world doubt for a moment that a military strike by Iraq would result in a Baghdad of fused green glass glowing wanly in the moonlight within hours? Saddam has shown himself to be belligerant, when did he show himself to be suicidal? As a civilized nation, we accept certain risks. This risk is puny in comparison to what he have already risked in the name of peace.
Moral There is little doubt that a war against Iraq would be successful, in the sense of achieving a goal of nuetralizing, if not annihilating, the Iraqi regime. But we recognize the tyranny of that regime, that its civilians have no say in how their policy is conducted. It is all well and good to confidently predict the immediate collapse of Saddam’s government, but war is chaos made manifest, the rational rules don’t always apply. People will defend their homeland regardless of their personal animosity to the regime in power. Russians threw themselves at Germans not for love of Stalin, but for Mother Russia. Germans standing in the ruins of their cities, destroyed by the madness of Nazism, offered themselves as cannon fodder in the Volksturmm, old men and boys, untrained, untested, unarmed threw themselves without so much as a hint of hope against a hardened, equipped and implacable enemy. Who can assure us that the streets of Baghdad will not be defended as were the streets of Berlin? These Iraqis, are they not men? If only one man in ten will fight, how many will we have to slaughter to achieve our ends? Certainly thousands, likely tens of thousands. What arrogance can justify so much death on the presumption of our risk?
If Belgium were to fling itself on France, it would be clobbered. There is no chance of prevailing, indeed, we would, as civilized persons expect France to exhibit restraint, nuking Brussels would horrify us. Why then are we not horrified at the prospect of attacking a vastly weaker power on the presumption that they may do us harm in the future?
Finally, strategic. As much noise as we make about not making war on Islam, what defense can a moderate Muslim offer? Iran is our enemy (Shi’ite) and is Iraq (Sunni). Yet we are allied with the Wahabbist rulers of Saudi Arabia. What sense could you make of a policy that regarded Protestants as equally dangerous as Catholics, yet allied with Mormons? We have a war on terror, a war on criminal radicals who do not legitimately represent any nation. This is our premise, and it is legitimate as far as that goes. A reasonable Muslim can see the distinction, as can any reasonable man. But if we make war on a country who has not attacked us, what defense can the reasonable Muslim make to the charge that the war is against Islam, when our main ally, Saudi Arabia, is widely regarded by Muslims as a corrupt kleptocracy?
Our enemies will certainly exploit the war against Iraq to their propaganda uses, and it will be effective to some degree or another. How many will gravitate towards the Al Queda’s of the world when proof of our anti-Islamic intent is made so clear? Well, we might say, it isn’t true, we are not a reborn Crusade. In this instance, the truth will not matter. An attack on Iraq will eliminate one potential enemy will sowing the dragons teeth of a thousand more.
If these reasons aren’t enough, there are more.
Thank you barton. I feel so much better when someone catches it.
** elucidator, ** my friend, as ever you leave me awestruck. One more for me to send to your not-so-secret admirer…
**You argue from a faulty premise. Why is it so difficult to remember an event that took place so recently? Iraq was the country that invaded Kuwait and torched their oil fields. Remember? It was in all the papers. That was the act of “aggressive war” that is the root of all the current activity.
After Saddam misbehaved, the rest of the international community, being the persnickety fussbudgets that they were, and prompted by the same philosophy you are describing, demanded the disarmament of certain portions of Iraq’s arsenal. There were consequences to Saddam’s misbehavior, consequences that he has ignored since then.
That is by itself a provocation. Yes, as you indicated, the U.S. is typically the enforcer off the law you describe. You understand what “enforce” means, correct? It may be convenient to describe the current activity as a reaction only to a “potential” offensive by Saddam. It may edify some people’s outrage over “U.S. imperialism.” Unfortunately it ignores the fundamental cause of the whole problem, which is that Iraq’s aggressive warfare is not a potential. It is a reality, a reality for which they have refused to take responsibility.
And it is still within Saddam’s power to avoid conflict, to behave in a manner that would at least begin to move them back in proper standing in the international community. I don’t believe that will happen, but it is a fact just the same.
**Um, what happened to the moral obligation the U.S. has as enforcer and signatory of the international law that does not suffer aggressive warfare? Shall we ignore that in this instance? And what logic do we employ to explain why Iraq risks so much to build up its arsenal of these awful weapons, when of course, “logically” they would never use them?
**So, war is never a moral alternative, from your perspective, in that innocent lives may be lost? Or do I misunderstand? And in your philosophy, those who militarily defend a horrible dictator are just more of the innocents, huh? Because people may behave irrationally (but we don’t know, but then again, maybe they will), then we ought to just sit tight? Until somehow someone can assure us that no one will behave as you describe, we should do nothing, regardless of Saddam’s actions?
If you don’t believe war is ever a moral option, just say so. If you feel otherwise, please explain why this is immoral specifically for the circumstance in front of us. Your one-size-fits-all, “war is hell” rationale doesn’t do the trick. And it would be amusing if it weren’t so incessant to hear that the arrogance evident in our current imbroglio is that of the U.S. Um, yeah, right. We’re the ones flouting international law. Gotcha.
**Sorry, but you continue to ignore the root cause of the current tension. Iran has not invaded Kuwait and torched their oil fields. Last I checked, neither had Saudi Arabia. Pretending that butter wouldn’t melt in poor, old Saddam’s mouth, if only we’d leave him alone, won’t change the fact that the act of provocation has already occurred. Any reasonable Muslim should see this (and many do).
Despite advancing years, my memory is quite functional, and my premises equally so. I dont quite get the gist of the last part there, as if an act that took place 10 years ago is a permanent causus belli, a permanent warrant for action on our part. Firstly, as has been documented, Saddam had reason to believe that America had no interest in his border dispute with what he considered, with some legitimacy, to be a province of Iraq. Secondly, by your reasoning, Cambodia is entirely justified in attacking the US, as we bombed them some thirty years ago.
Lastly, the entirely precious argument as regards Saddam’s compliance with the UN’s resolutions. The US has shown no eager resolve to enforce UN resolutions or sanctions except such as are convenient. Our Leader has made it entirely clear that the US will proceed regardless. Placing the legitimacy of US actions on the doorstep of the UN assumes that the US places some high regard for UN leadership. Clearly, this is nonsense.
Further, you hope to degrade my argument by comparing it to pacifism. I regret the existence of evil, but hold to the principle that is necessary to resist evil. This is not, nor can it be, a “one size fits all” arrangement, each situation must be weighed on its own. The attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor is the clearest example in modern history, there is no question there. If you wish to make your case unanwerable, as you seem to crave, then all you need do is show a military strike by Iraq on the US. An actual event, mind you, not some potential threat.
As to flouting international law, there are parking violations and there are more severe crimes. A military attack can have only one justification, an actual defensive posture resulting from a genuine, verifiable military action, not some presumption based on an event years gone.
To oversimplify: if the UN deliberates and decides that a united miliatary action against Iraq is unavoidable, it would be entirely legitimate for the US to concur and lend support. But absent a direct military attack by Iraq on the US specificly, the US has no legal or moral basis for military action against Iraq.
A final note as regards your contempt for “pacifism”. Keep in mind: one way or the other, the era of war is ending. We will have peace. It will be peace born of restraint and cooperation, or the lunar landscape of utter desolation. If nuclear weapons can be developed by Pakistan, they can be developed by Upper Volta and Chad. We must, repeat, must have peace, there is no other option, save Divine Intervention, if God shall cease to avert His eye.
Who is better placed, better equipped to lead the way than us? Who bears more responsibility? A policy of refusing to attack first is an essential foundation. Of course there are risks.
We are the single most advanced, powerful nation in world history. If not us, who? If not now, when?
**Nope, this is as specious as your last post, an absolute straw man. I have not at any point argued that any past act of aggression is justification enough for any future counter aggression. You can continue to argue against that if you’d prefer, but I won’t be able to help you in keeping up the other end.
There is a clear, unbroken and unresolved line of activity starting with the invasion of Kuwait to where we are today. That 10 years have passed and this is still an issue does not support an argument that there’s no need to pursue this further. Quite the contrary. Otherwise Iraq would have complied and we wouldn’t be discussing this. And your assigning of “legitimacy” to Saddam’s “border dispute” speaks volumes.
**Even if that point is conceded, that still does not demonstrate that the current course of action, the one we are discussing right now, isn’t just and proper. Again, you are arguing from a logically fallacious premise. That we may have acted improperly in the past (in not acting) should not lead us to conclude that we shouldn’t act now. Even Amnesty International doesn’t get this.
**Clearly? Then why didn’t we simply ignore the UN and the world community and proceed? You have to try a little harder than this. Simply saying something over and over again doesn’t make it so. And, again, can you actually explain why this would be wrong, even if it were true, given our status as enforcer of international law (I’m citing you here, of course).
**I don’t wish to degrade your argument. You’re doing fine without my assistance. If you don’t want this interpreted as a one-size-fits-all argument, then (again) please explain why war is the wrong reaction to the current circumstance, not just grandstand on the terrible things that can occur when war takes place, anywhere, anytime.
**The logical fallacies continue to abound! So, unless I can point to a Pearl Harbor-like strike by Iraq on the U.S., my argument is without merit. Because…you say so? Care to address any of the actual points I have made instead of unilaterally crafting my argument so that it’s easier for you to deal with it?
**And to what category would you assign invading Kuwait, torching their oil fields, killing their citizens, and inflicting millions of dollars worth of damage?
And you are, again, completely wrong in stating that a military action can only be justified by another actual military action. A legitimate and dire threat (e.g., the Cuban missile crisis) can certainly be justification for attack. Iraq currently employs that strategy now in how it “defends” its borders when it see U.S. planes.
But even if what you said were true, that would not change the fact that the resolutions Iraq ignored were the result of its own unprovoked military actions. An event years gone? Please! It is unresolved “years gone” because Saddam continues to refuse to comply with the will of the international community. This is not some ancient border dispute that the world has dusted off as justification for military action, as much as you’d like it to be.
Let me ask you directly. What should be the result of ignoring resolutions designed to check wanton aggression? In particular, explain how this willful disobedience makes the threat less, not more, than it was when the resolutions were passed.
**Dude, look up “argumentum ad nauseum.”
**This would be called an “ad hominem” argument, in addition to being another straw man, in case you’re keeping notes. Please show where I have demonstrated contempt for pacifism.
This is grandstanding disguised as argument. I grow weary. If you actually have some real premise for your argument (beyond your wish that it be so), please trot it out for us to take a gander.
You’re forgetting something very important – no one in the U.S. wanted to bankroll Saddam’s regime. The ideas in your post made sense pre-1990, but no longer.