Yeah, Hentor, truth, justice, and the American way requires that we do not attempt to apprehend and punish the perpetrators of genocide. Right.
Sua
Of course, that should be “we are” better than this. And we should be.
I really do fail to understand this argument. That heinous and inexcusable event occurred before the last war we fought with them, correct? Shouldn’t we have done something about it then, or can we simply pull it out every time we want to attack. Did you know that Japan committed massive atrocities against China? Holy shit, let’s go get them!
On the other hand, I do agree that we have a responsibility to intervene and prevent genocide. Do you agree that we should begin intervention in Africa immediately?
The bottom line is that we shouldn’t have to lie about our reasons for doing anything, and once we start forging evidence, we have lost our moral footing. This is a bad thing to do - worse than plagiarizing.
Genocide might be a very good reason for going to war, but this is not what the UN resolution is about, genocide of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs gets nary a mention.
This is about the US agenda, which claims to be about WOMD, whcih we are assured exist, but yet no convincing proof of which has been presented.
To start talking of a moral war, a war on genocide, and a liberation from opression for the people of Iraq is nothing whatsoever to do with the current impasse in the UN, and looks to me like someone here is trying to change the boundaries of the dispute because the original reason, WOMD just to remind you yet again!! has not yet been proven to exist.
If this were a criminal, trial the prosecution would be simply thrown out on the weakness of the so-called evidence.
Um, Hentor the genocide of the Swamp Arabs occurred after the Gulf War. Indeed, it isn’t complete yet, though most of the damage has been done, and the culture, as a coherent entity, is basically eliminated.
As for interventions in Africa, I am unaware of any ongoing genocides. If one is ongoing, yes, I believe we have a legal and moral obligation to intervene immediately.
Sua
casdave
-
I was asked for the reasons why I support a potential war. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Bush’s reasons, nor what the UN resolution says.
-
Do a search for my name and Iraq in GD. I have set forth my reasons (in much more detail) long ago, and I have consistently stated them.
Your statement
if it is directed at me, is both incorrect and offensive.
Sua
Stopping genocide IS a very good reason for going to war, the only thing preventing the halt to genocide is that outdated idea of the U.N.
Sua, if you really wish to argue the issue of a moral crusade conducted by America against genocide, that’s fine. We can discuss that. But your argument comes close to suggesting that these noble motives are the primary motivation for the Bushista’s pounding the war drums, and thats nonsense.
That argument comes to the fore mostly because the other arguments have proven weak. Early on, GeeDubya was jumping up and down and shouting that Saddam was going to have The Bomb (hence, the disgraceful incident of The Report That Didn’t Exist). A threat which apparently exists only in the fevered imagination of Our Leader.
Have you kept count of the number of lies and half-truths that have been served to us? The half-assed intelligence served up as solid gold? No to mention the flat out bald faced lies.
If you really intend to transform our nation into a nuclear-armed Don Quixote, doing battle against the Forces of Darkness wherever they may lurk…well, lets talk that over. But I don’t believe for one minute an image of the Bushistas dabbing damp hankies to thier eyes as they blubber over the sorrowful fate of the Iraqi people, as the tears flow copius and crocidlian.
elucidator, whhaaa?? As I’ve said a few times, I have stated the reasons I support the war. I have never said, implied, inferred, dreamt, or imagined that it is Bush’s reasons.
And while others may bring it to the fore because other arguments are allegedly weak, I don’t bring it forward for that reason. I have stated it, and stated it repeatedly, in numerous threads in GD, including several in which you have participated.
Here is a thread from October that sets forth my philosophy. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=138918&highlight=world+AND+policeman
I ain’t supporting Bush. I am supporting a war that will result - regardless of why we are fighting it - in the removal from power, and likely apprehension/execution, of a man who have committed numerous atrocities and who routinely violates the human rights of his citizens.
My opinions and beliefs are not based on US intelligence reports. They are based on the reports of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the like. Are they lying, too?
When Bush comes up for re-election, I’m voting against him, regardless of what happens in Iraq. But I don’t care if Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel is currently running the show, if he is willing to go get Saddam.
I’m a ‘liberal hawk,’ for want of a better term. For me, about the only valid use of the military is to stop injustice and punish the perpetrators. But if injustice is occuring, we should use the military, and not weasel around.
Sua
OK, Sua, that is a position worth arguing, but I honestly think it deserves its own thread, and its own thesis. For myself, I fear that the sheer number of creepy monsters who hold positions of dreadful authority would render such a crusade Quixotic, I am willing to consider such.
SauSponte
Your personal reasons why Saddam Hussain should be eliminated may, or may not, be good and worthy, but we are not discussing this, and such reasons are not those being put forward officially by the US to the UN.
What I find in my day to day humdrum life is that those minority who put forward their support for war(significanity large minority I will concede) will use this as their own justification for war, and they do not understand why nations such as France, Russia et al, or folk even folk like me appear to be standing in the way.
The reason is that their premise is false, the war is not being justified to the world as a humanitarian one, though this sometimes gets a small mention in passing as a desirable outcome.
This war is being portayed as necessary for our own self protection in the face of a great danger, it is being conflated with events in Afghanistan and 9/11, and yet the evidence up to now does not bear this out in any convincing way.
I fear the reason that is is not being put to the UN as a humanitarian action is that there are many other nations in there that could see themselves as being next (and they probably deserve it too).
I wish we could have the moral courage to say enough! of world tyrants and despots, I wish we could ignore the politicking and get down to basic humanity, eliminate the atrocious regimes around the world and, Lord alone knows, that Saddam Hussain falls squarely into that category.
The reason I am against this particular war is not because I support that monster, but the basic dishonesty of our leaders, if we cannot rely on what they say to us(since their lies are transparent), then what hope have we of ever having the moral authority to bring a the world a little closer to international justice ?
All Dubya and Blair need do, in my eyes, is publicly state this horrible regime must be removed for the sake of human justice, that would do for me.
They have said so, on a number of occasions - it’s believing them that’s the problem, given the sole focus on eliminating Saddam whatever the long-term consequences, and given the wide reason of rationales that have been test-marketed and failed before coming to that one, and given their shubbing of the very people who should be allies in such an endeavor.
Yes, it would be very nice if the regime were changed - if it were believably going to be significantly for the better, and if the change were believably going to be worth the inevitable cost in lives on both sides, and if more immediate threats were not being iignored or discounted in the meanwhile. While we can all share Sua’s hope for the best, there is a saying in my industry that “Hope is not a strategy.” We have to make our decisions on what to support and oppose based on what is and what is most likely to be.
Those of us who believe that Bush is not committed to a long-term goal of making the region a safer, more democratic and prosperous place, and lacks the leadership skills to do so even if he were so committed, and therefore is pulling us into a disaster no matter what, are, I believe, more realistic and responsible.
Um, rsa specifically asked me my personal reasons, and I provided them. rsa and I certainly are discussing them. You may choose to participate or not.
Golly, if someone tried to shut down a discussion of a reason to oppose the war, I’m sure we’d be hearing cries of censorship by now.
Yet it appears to be yours. How many people have died because of the sanctions? The number I have heard is 720,000 - 60,000 a year. If there is no war, do you think the sanctions are going to go away? Of course they aren’t - both the US and the UK have veto power.
How many lives is a war going to cost? 100,000? That’s an additional 1 2/3 years of sanctions - and the sanctions will be in place long after 1 2/3 years.
If you want to claim that avoiding war will save lies, you are dead wrong.
Sua
Bush and Blair removing a madman with WMDs and the will and want to use them against his own people and against his enemy, is a humanitarian action anyway you put it, and maybe by reworking or replacing the UN or its mission is the best way to rid the rest of the world of it’s brutal dictators.
Wow. Is it really that easy? I especially love the ‘maybe’ part.
That argument - saving lives by war as opposed to sanctions - is a bit slippery. After all, we could both eschew war and the sanctions. Or, failing that, apply more intelligent sanctions. The utterly braindead example of forbidding the import of chlorine for water purification purposes on the laughable grounds that chlorine gas comprises a WMD leaps to mind.
Next comes the difficulty in rendering that judgement. Auguste Pinochet is worse than Robert Mugabe. Almost certainly the reverse. But is Mugabe worse than Milosevic? Tougher call.
And that isn’t even to begin to consider the regime change question for China: a dreadful regime if arguably not an directly genocidal regime, but multiplied by the sheer number of people involved. Is oppressing a billion people a thousand times worse than opresssing a million?
For the sake of our sanity, if not our souls, I reluctantly recommend sticking to military methods for self-defense only. Incursions like Serbia can be justified and accepted if sufficient international cooperation can be mustered. The current situation as regards Iraq falls far short.
This should not be taken to mean I disapprove or disdain the moral imperative Sua put forth. Far from it.
Sua, do you have anything that I could read that would inform me about the post 1991 genocide committed by Saddam to which you refer? I must have missed it, but googling on Saddam Hussein Iraq swamp arabs genocide (in most possible combinations) turned up information only on those events that occurred prior to the Gulf War.
Perhaps it is already over, but the Ivory Coast was the most recent (approx. Dec. 2002) site of atrocities that I can think of. We didn’t seem too concerned, except of course for the 100 or so diplomatic personnel and family members (IIRC).
Elvis, There are some of us who do believe that President Bush is committed to making the region safer and that by leaving Sadaam in power is having just the opposite effect. I have children growing up in this world and I hate war just as much as any one else, but how do I explain how we stood by while the Jews were led to their deaths during the 1940’s and why we are standing by now.
We could easily get into a situation where we are holding Iraq against the wishes of the population, and then find we are stuck in an ongoing urban war where fundamentalists from all over the Moslem world see it as a great opportunity to take out one or two of the ‘Great Satans’ troops.
Far from making the world safer it might just do the opposite.
If we find our soldiers are being taken out one by one, by car bombs, suicide bombs, snipers etc whilst patrolling the newly liberated Iraq will be be so keen to remain there and ensure the nascent imposed democracy is not stillborn ?
I sincerly doubt that at street level in the Arab world, our supposed reasons for invasion are seen as anything else but an attempt to exert US power in foreign lands.
Vietnam was one thing, but to have ranged against you millions upon millions of Moslems, who are totally committed, from a region stretching from Morrocco, right around to the Phillipines and Indonesia, well, that sure is something, and its something that we had better be prepared for.
Fireman I’ll take your words at face value, but nonetheless there is no chance, zero, zip, nada, that this war will make the Middle East safer. GeeDubya paints a lovely picture, but it is a fantasy, a fever dream.
Lets just take one aspect of it: the delusion of “democracy” for the Iraqi people. We mean no such thing. Do you honestly imagine that we will allow the Iraqi people to vote for whomsoever they choose? Even if they wished to install an Islamic Republic along Iranian lines? Suppose they wanted Saddam back? A most unlikely scenario, to be sure, but it illustrates my point. We will permit the Iraqi people to choose between a slate of acceptable candidates, candidates who reflect our dream of a liberal parliamentary Iraq.
And that presupposes the unlikely prospect that a united Iraq can exist at all. The Kurds want no part of it, neither do the Sh’ites of the south. Most likely the Kurds will be delivered unto the tender mercys of the Turks. God protect them - for we most assuredly will not.
Iraq exists as a unified country (such as it is) only because of the iron fist of Saddam. When the last American airlifts out, the likelihood that all hell will break loose approaches certainty.
And so we won’t. We cannot. You have children now? We’ll still have soldiers stationed in Iraq when they are off to college. Bet on it.