"Even dolls were buried with the children"

Great Debates
81

I never said your points didn’t “stand”. But where do they stand? :smiley:

No, it is not debatable that in the last days leading up to the war Iraq was saying their country was open to inspectors and America refused to send them. And when America cited a site as a WMD factory the Iraqis said it was open to them but the US refised to inspect it and the Iraqis took a contingent of international press reporters on a tour of the site. That is not opinion that was in the news. If you still believe that is “Iraq acting like they have WMD to hide” then I don’t know what to say.

The fact is that Bush had made up his mind to go to war and nothing Iraq could do was going to stop him. That was pretty evident. And now it is becoming even more evident to what extent he lied.

82

A case in point for the brutality of civil wars is taking place right now in the Congo. Mobutu Sese shares some similarities with Saddam – he was a butcher who was at least partially backed by the US (in the fight against Communism). He grew rich while his country languished in abject poverty. He’s gone now, and I don’t think many people would argue that Congo is particularly better off.

If Afghanistan or Iraq turns into Somalia, or if sharia becomes law in Southern Iraq, I don’t think we have done anyone any service. I don’t think that these possibilities are particularly unlikely, especially given the way the first 8 weeks of peacekeeping has gone (and the first year in Afghanistan). I think the optimists around here forget how fast we turned against peacekeeping in Somalia after the troubles we had there. The optimists and the pessimists all recognize the Good Thing; the pessimists realize that the Good Things are only relevant in a long-term setting. Mussolini made the trains run on time, after all.

83

quote:

Originally posted by Shodan
I have said it before, but I will repeat - my objections to the US acting as the world’s policeman are practical, not moral. If we could overthrow every tinpot dictator on earth as quickly as we did Saddam, we would be almost morally compelled to do it.

The difficulty is that we can’t, not that we shouldn’t.

MTG: I just want to second what Shodan said. I had meant to when I first read it, then forgot until you brought it up again. I’d pharse it slightly differently, and wouldn’t say we were “almost morally compelled to do so”, but more like we were “morally justified to do so if we chose to”. Having said that, I wouldn’t advocate invading other countries (as I didn’t advocate invading Iraq) because I just don’t see it as in our long term interest to do so.

That sure does appear to have been handled very poorly. We’ll see if any of the planners are held accountable.

84

Rumsfeld pretty much personally dictated the reductions of troop strength to demonstrate to the generals how few troops they could take Baghdad with.

I don’t think there are any plans to fire him.

And again, I come back to the Commander in Chief’s apparent total absence of worry about the threat of looted WMDs loose in the Arab world. “Mission accomplished” and all that, you know.

85

RTFirefly: I’ve interpreted Administration comments and actions as indicating that they believe that the WMDs are still there and that they’ve somehow kept them bottled up, and that given time, they’ll produce them. Not that I think that’ll ever happen, nor do I necessarily think they’re right, but I think if the Administration thought that the WMDs had gotten out, they’d be trumpeting it to high heaven, especially given their desperation to explain the lack of results so far, and doubts over their use of the threat level color code in the past. IOW, it’d be to their benefit to point elsewhere for the WMDs and be all grave and panicked. That they haven’t yet is a sign, I believe.

Just my two cents.

86

John: Following one’s own moral code pretty much, by definition, produces morally justified actions when the actions are judged by oneself. From our own point of view, sure it was morally justified, this is a truism, not a proof. What absolute statements like Shodan’s fail to recognize is the possibility that one person’s moral code is not necessarially universal, nor objectively correct. I’m not sure there is such a thing as a moral system which could be considered objectively true the way we can say things like gravity are objectively true. Deposing a dictator who commits human rights abuses via military force sounds great on the surface. I don’t think you’ll find very many people who will disagree with it. The problem is that, in real life, situations aren’t that simple. Who defines human rights abuses? Well, torture, imprisonment, and execution of political dissidents and/or their families sounds pretty clearly abusive no matter what your scale, right? In reality it seems this depends on who you ask. Those whose security depends on keeping those dissidents out of power(ie the Sunnis in Iraq versus the Shiites) seem to be perfectly ok living with the knowledge that their privelege is maintained by ruthlessly oppressing another group. It is fairly easy to sit back and say “They’re behaving immorally and they should have fought to stop the repression” but it is equally easy for them to look across at us and say “They’re behaving immorally for murdering babies by the millions in utero”.

Morality is relative. I have some fairly serious issues with the assertion that the US should go around imposing our moral system(which values Democracy, Judeo-Christian tradition, British common-law, and a high rate of personal freedoms) on the other countries of the world. Especially by force and regardless of their current situation.

If the moral system really is superior, then spreading the word of it and living by example should be enough. If intervention should be necessary(as I believe it is in the Congo) it should be purely on grounds of stopping bloodshed. Setting up a government to our liking, especially if it is against the will of the population, IMHO, abridges the rights we claim to treasure of the “liberated” population.

As an example, I emphatically disapprove of the Administration’s position of rejecting a theocracy in Iraq, even if it is the will of the Iraqi people. I would similarly disapprove of attempts to impose a Christian state in the US and I heartily would kick the crap out of anyone who tried to forcibly convert me to Islam or any other religion/ideology. I won’t support politicians who attempt to do this in my name(as a member of a representative democracy I feel somewhat responsible for the actions of my government).

Overall the analogy of any country becoming the “worlds policeman” relies on the false comparison between the situation of a law enforcement official and a citizen(both of whom answer to the laws of the soverign state they are a representive of and a citizen of respectively) and the situation between two equals who answer to their own indepedent codes of law and morality. They may sign treaties and they should be held to those treaties, but to use the “policeman” analogy is simply flawed. The US has no right to take action or enforce its laws or morality on another country outside the bounds of legally negotiated and ratified treaties which bind both parties(in the case of Saddam’s oppressive rule it could have been handled by proving him in violation of UN treaties and articles on human rights if the US and other UN member states had really given a shit about human rights abuses in Iraq). An exception is made for a state which is behaving as a rogue and poses a threat to its peers. A peer is allowed to defend itself from a clear and present danger.

A policeman and a citizen are NOT peers. They are both subjects, subject to the laws of the country they live in. The US and Iraq were peers. They were NOT subject to each other’s laws

Enjoy,
Steven

87

I just wonder if it would have made december feel better if Saddam had separated the dolls from the children before they were buried.

88

I’m struck by your attitude of “fuck the children!”

You must be a Republican! :eek:

89

Mtgman:

I probably agree with more of your last post than you realize. I am not in favor of military intervention except when our country is under attack. As I said before, I do not see that we have a moral obligation to act just because we might have a moral justification to do so. I see a higher moral obligation to protecting our own citizens and if there is a conflict between protefcting this country and another country, we need to protect ours.

But to say morality is relative is a cop out. If you don’t use your own moral code to guide your actions, what good is it?

As for setting up a gov’t in Iraq, I do pretty much agree with you. While I might lean more towards setting up a western style democracy (to begin with) than you might, I’d be perfeftly fine with letting it run on its own afterwards and having to live with the consequences of whatever the Iraqis did.

Anyway, I have all the hope in the world that things turn out good for Iraq, but the realist in me says it’s very unlikely. I absolutely do not want to see our military in there for more time than it takes to get the country in self-sustaining mode. I don’t know if that’s 1 yr, 2 yrs or maybe more, but after some point, our presence there will be more of a liability than an asset. The key, in my mind, is to make sure we have an exit plan and stick to it. To just think can have our guys there “indefinitely” while we opperate by the seat of our pants is extremely foolish and dangerous.

90

I’m struck by your silly notion that the presence of dolls in a mass grave retroactively justifies the invasion, subjugation, and occupation of a foreign country.

I guess dolls are easier to spin than all those missing warehouses of nerve gas.

91

Good, because I feel perfectly justified, heck, maybe even obligated, to argue any dissenters into submission. ;)**

I’ve never claimed one shouldn’t use their own moral code to guide their actions. What I have opposed, from the very beginning, is using force to make others follow your moral code. Dictating the role of Women in Iraq, dictating what type of government they can have. Dictating the terms of their contracts with reconstruction firms. Dictating the firms they can choose. And yes, some of these things would violate their morality. IIRC Islam holds that it is better to do business with companies owned and operated by Muslims than to do business with non-believers if a choice is available. There are Muslim companies which could re-build some of Iraq’s infrastructure. Want to guess how much choice the Iraqi people will be given in these contract selections?(Hint, they’ve been given pretty much zip so far)

Now if the US is writing the laws of Iraq, how can this be anything BUT imposing morals on them?**

I honestly have no clue what to do with Iraq. I am not leaning towards imposition of any type of government, but I realize they need one ASAP. I highly value the principles behind(in theory at least) western style democracy, but to impose it on Iraq is anathema to my sense of respect for their right of self-determination and viewpoints. In addition, just because I think it is a wonderful style of government doesn’t mean it will work there or that it would even be fair there. How are you going to get a real representative vote? Gangs of thugs roaming the streets on election day and/or “clerics” who preach politics. How in the hell am I supposed to think a true representative government is even possible? God damn it’s a mess. The only thing I’m sure of is my distrust of anyone who claims to know what is best and/or what should be done. Yet another offshoot of my more fundamental(and cynical) belief that no one who actually pursues power should ever be allowed to have it.

Enjoy,
Steven

92

The mass murder of children, along with other evidence, indicates that the Ba’ath Regime was evil or ruthless or depraved or flagitious. Pick your favorite adjective. It would be dangerous to risk the possibility that this monstrous organization might acquire nuclear weapons or other WMDs.

Millions of ordinary Americans understand this simple principle. It’s a credit to minty’s high intelligence and legal expertise that he can devise a way to overlook it.

93

Now there’s a sig.

Enjoy,
Steven

94

So, are you finally condemning the support of previous Republican administrations to this “evil or ruthless or depraved or flagitious” regime? Or is Saint Ronald still as pure and innocent as new snow?

95

I blame Reagan for allowing Saddam to remain in power.

I blame Bush Sr. for allowing Saddam to remain in power.

I blame Clinton for allowing Saddam to remain in power.

I am deeply appreciative that Israel bombed Saddam’s nuclear reactor.

96

I’m not quite sure what you want here, december. What do you want us to believe? GeeDubya and Co. were so deeply shocked by the moral depravity and horror of the Saddam regime, that they were compelled, with heavy hearts, to hoodwink the American people to a noble cause?

Or is it that the outcome is so splendiferous, so clear in its radiance, that we should overlook bumbling incompetence that would make the Keystone Kops look like George Smiley?

Did they cunningly manipulate this deus ex machina into being, or did they bellyflop into a vat of shit and come up smelling like a rose?

Could you be more specific?

97

Glad to. From a decision-making POV, war against Iraq was a no-brainer. There were so many good reasons to effect regime change militarily:[ol][li]Iraq had indicated that they would never obey their commitments and the UN resolutions.[]Iraq had large amounts of WMDs[]Iraq had a desire to acquire an arsenal of WMDs.[]Iraq supported terrorism[]Saddam hated the US.[]All non-military approaches had failed to bring them into compliance.[]Because of the corruption of certain member countries and the UN itself, the UN was never going to take effective action.[]The US had the wherewithall to win the war quickly and with relatively few casualties. []The cruelty of the Ba’ath regime justified regime change all by itself.[/ol]As it turns out, reason #2 appears to have been wrong or exaggerated. OTOH #9, the cruelty of the Ba’ath regime, was even worse than many believed. All the other reasons turned out to be correct. [/li]
So, going to war was a right decision for mostly the right reasons.

98

Thanks for answering a question. If you have the time, could you answer the question?

Was the propaganda of false and/or exaggerated threat intentional, or a simply a result of men eagerly accepting as “intelligence” that which fits their presumptions?

The Niger forgery, much discussed here, was delivered unto us with straight faces, and with the weight of dreadful news full of grim foreboding. Did he know, and did Colin Powell know, that it was a turd sundae?

What did the President know, and when did he know it? Does he even know it now?

99

Your guess is as good as mine. It should be emphasized that many other world leaders shared Bush’s opinions, although he was the one who took the lead in acting on them.

If true, this would have been dreadful news full of grim foreboding. I presume he and Colin Powell believed the reports they were given, but who knows?

We can be certain that the President knows much more than you or I do. The list of things I don’t know could fill a book.[ul][]What WMDs did Iraq possess right before the war?[]What was the status of Iraq’s WMD program at that time?[]In particular, what was the status of Iraq’s nuclear program?[]If Iraq destroyed their WMDs after 1998 and ceased their nuclear program, why did they do so? And, under those assumptions, why didn’t they tell the UN they had done so, in order to get the sanctions lifted and ultimately to forestall a US invasion?[]Did the leaders of Iraq think that they had a WMD program, but they were fooled, eiother internally or externally? (I’ve seen both of these theories propounded.)[]Were the US spy agency reports similar to the reports of spy agencies in the UK and other countries?[]Did the US spy agencies to twist their reports? (They deny it.) []If so, was the twisting done because of pressure from the Administration?Maybe spy agencies in general were accustomed all along to hyping their reports. This would have been perfectly safe in the days when world leaders did nothing but talk.[/ul]I hope the answers to these and other questions emerge in the US Senate investigations. I believe the UK will be conducting investigations as well.

100

Actually, I believe that there is a moral responsibility to address the type of horrors you mention here. The fact that we selectively apply the use of the policeman’s hat is something we should, as a nation, be ashamed of.

We should never fight to install a US friendly government. We should never turn our back when slaughter is occurring. Evil triumphs when evil has no fear of repercussion. Maybe if we went into Sierra Leone or Uganda the nations of the 3rd world would think twice before unleashing genocide or ethnic cleansing on their people.

Another thread on this board speaks to the root of terrorism. Perhaps the root touches our own inconsistency in where and when we wiled the stick.

Being the lone superpower should be a burden to us. That is, unless we amass power simply for the sake of amassing power.