Hey, this is the Pit, right? Tender and vulnerable persons have no business here, they stand out like Amish at a monster tractor pull.
Hahah. Nice post, elucidator. 
I think the point is that I don’t ascribe to the “moral equivalence” theory that you do. I’ve heard the arguments about how the U.S. has done some pretty horrible deeds in the past, which means we cannot rectify the situation now, and I don’t think they carry much water. You say that the defectors tell us what we want to hear. To that, the only thing I can say is that the record of Saddam’s tortuous tactics is long and ever-increasing. If you can draw a parallel between the U.S. arming Israel so that they can protect themselves with Saddam having children raped as their parents are forced to watch, then bully for you. Frankly, I cannot draw such a comparison.
I’d also like you to mention Iraq’s connections with Abu Sayyef. I already admitted that the connections with Al Qaeda were tenuous, so there was no need to patronize me on that particular point. However, you never mentioned anything about Iraq’s relationship with Abu Sayyef. Why avoid this issue?
And as for “over-reacting.” How do you consider 12 years and 17 resolutions over-reacting? It’s obvious Hussein is used to the ole song and dance by now. If the current situation does not turn into a regime change, then the inspections will continue for a few more months, Hussein will accuse the inspectors of spying, refuse access to sites, and the inspectors will once again leave with their tails between their legs. Nothing accomplished. Iraqi citizens continue to live in a tortuous, oppressive regime. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
In conclusion, my rebuttal to your rant about the resolutions against Israel can be referred to the “moral equivalency” statement I made above. If you believe the actions of a country defending itself against other countries that believe Israel should not even exist are akin to suicide bombers who intentionally target civilians, I believe your opinion is misguided. But, once again, that’s JMHO. (See, I can form an argument without patronizing people, isn’t that neat?!?) 
And yes, I know it’s the Pit, so I’m allowed to be hypocritical and patronizing as well. haha.
To mystic: If people across the world can protest the actions of George W. Bush, who is not their elected representative, surely they can protest the heinous actions of Saddam Hussein, correct? And please don’t go down the tired “Bush wasn’t elected” road. Can we please keep to the topic, which is supposed to concern the hypocricy regarding the Iraqi situation? Thanks.
To Sofa King: I honestly understand your concern. My only fear is that if Saddam’s regime is not toppled this time, it will not only mean that Saddam will continue to be allowed to oppress his people, but also that the UN will not stand up for anything and that its resolutions are as useless as elucidator stated. We’ve been down this road too many times; it’s time to do something about it. Frankly, I hope Hussein goes into exile, but I doubt it will happen.
And Beagle, your statements about France hit the nail on the head.
And to everyone, thanks again for the welcome.
Jeez, Beagle you make me sorry I used up all my sarcasm. GeeDubya is an idealist? Crap, I have to stick to simple sincerity.
He’s not an idealist, he’s a fantacist. Do you really really think the Iraqis will get to vote? Do you think they will be allowed to vote for Saddam? Of course they won’t. But could they? Will they be permitted to establish an Iranian Shi’ite type of Islamic Republic, if they so choose? The Iranians did, don’t forget. The elected the pain-in-the-butt mullahs who rule them now. However unlikely the prospect, my point remains: the Iraqi people will be free to elect whichever approved candidate they choose. And the Kurds? Will they get a chance to vote the “Kill the Turks” ticket? Remember the American Experience: true democracy is the right to make really stupid choices.
This sort of regime change, from tyranny to guided democracy is an improvement for being relatively bloodless, but it is a far cry from establishing democracy.
More importantly, war is inherently polarizing, it angers up the blood. The primary effect of war on Iraq as regards the Middle East is to undercut the postions of the moderates in every venue. We seem damned and determined to unite the Muslim world around hating us. As a way of preparing the Middle Eastern ground to for growing democracies, its a little like planting tomatoes with a submachine gun.
As to the moral equivalence: war can only be justified on the same ground as personal violence: in self defense of real and present danger. Saddams level of personal evil doesn’t enter into it, unless you’re making the argument that we should devote our children and our treasure to a bloody campaign to rid the world of evil-doers. For myself, I have no intention of becoming the citizen of a nuclear-armed Don Quixote.
elucidator: The American experience includes freeing nations from the clutches of various tyrants. Or, to be fair, occasionally delivering them in to the hands of tyrants. But, be that as it may, this time I’m sure that Saddam is a true, in-the-flesh, horrific tyrant. He is so pathological, I can see how Bush might select him as worthy of special attention. He has been rebuilding since the Gulf War and the bombings of 1998, and the anti-war movement suggests that this means Saddam has changed in some way? That he is “containable”? This is crazy, and deep down everyone knows it. The second Saddam gets his hands on a nuclear weapon, he thinks he is untouchable. His propensity for miscalculation is legendary.
Furthermore, to compare Saddam to “a bad choice,” is specious. The Iraqis vote, sure, for one candidate. I don’t think anything about the composition of a potential democratic government in Iraq except that I would love to see an attempt.
BUT, I’m on boring wait-and-see fence right now. I don’t want to start any military action until we play out every other option. Then, though I think you downplay the possiblity of success, I agree there is the potential for things to go wrong.
As for Bush, he is what he is. Why debate that on every topic?
Shane: France is truly against war, I’m sure of that. A position made more convenient with the oil connections. Since the future of the oil is tied into getting the sanctions lifted under Saddam’s regime, it makes sense that France is sincerely for peace, disarmament, and making billions off the result. Whereas, US companies might cash in off a regime change. Convenient all the way around.
If we can free some people from a horrible tyrant and make a few billion, why not? OTOH, France thinks, If we can disarm a horrible tyrant and make a few billion, why not?
I failed to mention, disarmament - as expected - has accelerated quite rapidly as the US invasion force approaches critical mass. I present the cooperation that grows from the barrel of a gun. Why rush into a war when plans for Saddam to leave are under way or disarmament goals can be achieved other ways?
I’d love to regime change, but I’m more of a realist than Bush about that one. Politically, Bush is the wrong president at the wrong time. Clinton could have organized one in 1998. Militarily, I worry about what happens to the Iraqi people when a cornered Saddam reacts. Our troops at least will have some ability to protect themselves. Regarding a post-war Iraq, it might be as difficult to pull off as the post-war Afghanistan. But, and I don’t offer this as a justification for war so much as a general observation, nothing in the realm of dealing with dictators, power, sovereignty, and issues of war and peace is ever easy.
Here’s a terrific PBS Frontline especial that gives you the full chronology of the events leading up to the implemenation of current US foreign policy and the reasons for the proposed invasion of Iraq – you’ll note that oil is only part of the larger picture. Although it certainly is a major factor.
If you have a broadband connection and an hour to kill, I can’t recommend it strongly enough.
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/69808.htm
Hypocricy over Iraq? Uhhh where does this put Hillary?
Gee, elucidator, do you ever bite yourself in the backside arguing in circles like that?
Bush is a bad guy, you claim. How do you know this? Because of what he is going to do in Iraq. How do we know that what he is going to do in Iraq is bad? Because he is a “fantacist”, which means either that he fantasizes, or that he is a fanatic - in other words, because he is a bad guy.
I thought you were the one swearing up and down that nobody could read Saddam Hussein’s mind or the future. Now it turns out that you can read Bush’s and the future as well.
And therefore you know for certain that Bush is going to conquer Iraq, set up elections, that some terrorist is going to garner near-universal support from the Iraqis but mean old President Bush won’t let them vote for him. And therefore the US is all nasty and stuff because the Israelis don’t abide by resolutions on the purely specious ground that the Palestinians don’t do so either.
Or something.
I wonder if Aunty Hazel isn’t the only one who needs her meds re-evaluated.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Welcome to the SDMB, ShaneVA, and may your stay and your posts be long.
Regards,
Shodan
It seems to me that both sides are being hypocrites over this. The left, with their belief that the poor and downtrodden should be supported regardless of cost should be backing this. While the right with their belief that we shouldn’t be nation-building, and that money spent on the underprivileged is a waste of hard-earned tax dollars, should be screaming form the mountain tops against it.
But that ain’t happening.
Go figure.
See part of the problem about the US accusing the UN of losing its authority stems almost entirely from the US not accepting the opinions of other members of the UN.
The UN is about consensus (bit niaive that actually) but the image of the UN is that the nations of the world discuss matters, iron out differances and come to some arrangement.
The US is saying that if the UN does not do what is wants, in the teeth of opposition from some other UN members, then the US will go ahead anyway, thus this prediction by the US is a self-fulfilling one.
France, Germany, Russia, Belgium and others certainly have their own intelligence agencies working flat out, and thus will have very similar data to the US.
These countries have examined this and have decided that whatever they have discovered does not justify a total invasion.
Given that these nations can see a differant, and less warlike, route to achieve the same end, they must think the US can see this too and they must think that the US has some other motive.
Clinton did not try these tactics and did not get anything like the international backlash, his policy did not call for the aggressive occupation of Iraq, and this is the fundamental differance between the approach if the two administrations.
Despite hours of heavily biased reporting on the need for a war in Iraq, despite our media being filled with justifications for war, there still has not been any cast iron convincing evidence of WOMD, and even if such existed, this in itself is not necassarily justification for invasion, but without some semblance of international unity the case for invasion is even less robust.
Soviet Russia, for much of the last century, was without doubt the most odious regime on earth, with state of the art WOMD, one of the worlds greatest contributors to world terrorism and an openly announced policy of trying to destabilise democratic/capitalism.
Russia really and truly was a threat to the existance of the entire human race
All we did was wait (and apply pressure carefully), it took 80 years but the regime collapsed under the weight of its own corruption.
On the scale of world threat Iraq comes a pretty poor distant relation to the threat that Russia represented.
If the US wants the UN to have real authority it should cease acting like a spoiled child, and accept that it has not yet made a persuasive enough case.
When other nations of the world see that the US itself abides by the wishes of the UN collective, then they will see that any decisions the UN makes carry the full weight of world opinion.
The US has done plenty to undermine the UN over the years, things like not stumping up the cash on commitments it had already made for instance.
I just want to stop by and add my voice to the chorus of posters welcoming ShaneVA. So far (in this thread at least) you’ve shown a balanced viewpoint and an open mind, a couple of things we can always use more of around here. Your apparent willingness to consider other peoples’ points of view is a rare and valuable trait.
I’d place myself at pretty much the opposite end of a broad-brush political spectrum from most of the posters here singing your praises (december and Shodan come to mind, both of whom I happen to know I disagree with strongly on most issues of this nature), but that doesn’t stop me from agreeing with them here.
That said, I’m not pro-Saddam, I’m anti-war. People don’t “protest” Saddam’s policies because there ain’t squat we can do about them; we don’t get input. We do supposedly get input into what our own government does, which is why anti-war protests are aimed at actors that are felt to be receptive or at least accountable to the weight of public opinion, such as the U.S. government.
I agree with you and Sam Stone and others that there is a measure of hypocrisy on all sides in this debate. However, the fact that some people who currently describe themselves as anti-war have at times displayed hypocrisy doesn’t stop me from being against this war.
ShaneVA: Others have given you answers that say what I was going to say a lot better, but I thought I’d give you my spiel. The rest of you, you’ve already heard it a dozen times, but I can’t assume that our new person here has.
Personally, although I’m mostly anti-war, I still have room to be convinced otherwise. That just hasn’t happened yet. You see, my major concern is that war will increase terrorist threat to me, the rest of the U.S., and our allies, without a return that makes it worth it. This point really depends on whether you think Saddam’s WMDs would have been distributed to terrorists had there been no threat of war whatsoever. Anti-war activists and the CIA (before they changed their minds) think they wouldn’t have. War advocates think they would. Anti-war activists don’t think that the “future savings” in lives by going to war matches up at all to the immediate toll that will be taken in war and terrorist attacks caused by war. War advocates think it will.
Further, many have argued that the outrage in the rest of the world caused by war advocacy has fatally damaged the goodwill we had immediately after 9/11, thus seriously damaging the cooperation needed to capture terrorists. of course, war advocates also argue that war will do at least as much, if not more, to damage terrorists, but who knows. Certainly not I.
So you see, the entire worth of this war on both sides is predicated on guesses either about the past or about the future, and that level of uncertainty makes me very leery. Of course, the government might have information we don’t (though I wonder if it’s being used at all), and I personally don’t ascribe the selfish motives to Bush that many here are. But still, it’s enough to make me very very doubtful that the path we’re on is the right one.
Gee, Shodan, sorry to confuse you. A “fantacist” is one who concocts fantastic stories, or one who fantacizes. It has no direct connection with “fanatic”. In the words of Mr. Berra, “you could look it up”. In the future, I’ll stick to words you can readily grasp when conducting my campaign against The Man Who Fell Up. “Liar” leaps to mind.
As to my objections to mind-reading, its hard to see the parallel you insist exists. I do indeed strongly suspect that Mr. Bush means to take us to a war. My suspicions are aroused by the movement of several hundred thousand troops into the immediate area. Presumably, they are not on a field trip. No doubt you have equally solid proof of Saddam bin Ladens intentions, regretably, in your haste, you have neglected to specify them.
I do not state, nor do I mean to imply, any direct correlation between Israel’s cavalier disregard of UN resolutions and Palestinian response to same (though, in truth, I don’t entirely recall any UN resolutions demanding some action on the part of the Palestinians, who, point of fact, have no state to be addressed by the United Nations.) My point, as I’m sure you already know, is that to pretend to justify war on the basis of UN resolutions is specious when that justification is applied only when convenient.
Glad to clear this up for you.
Umm, it’s spelled fantasist. The c belongs in fanatic, not fantasy.
Carry on.
You’re right. I’ll stick to “liar”.
Let me expand that a bit, the “fantasist” thing. I think he sincerely believes it. I don’t believe it to be a cynical morsel concocted strictly for public consumption.
I think he genuinely believes, and doesn’t doubt for a moment, that the Iraqi people will greet the incoming American troops strewing roses in their path. They will rush to cooperate in building a unified Iraq - Kurd, Sh’ite and Sunni - old animosities older than dirt set aside, a parliamentary democracy whipped up that will loyally support American goals and interests as they march forward to a future as shopkeepers and Starbucks franchisees. And they will love us.
Thus, he doesn’t think about alternative consequences. He assumes that an electorally empowered Iraqi electorate will naturally gravitate towards supporting American policy.
So when I say something like “Suppose they want to elect Saddam?” I don’t for one moment think they might. But suppose they did? Or they want to set up an Islamic Republic. Does anyone here imagine they will be permitted to do so? And, absent that, isn’t any pretension of delivering democracy empty and moot? The power to decide is the power to fuck up, they are inseperable. Lord knows, we’ve done it often enough, Hell, we came within a hairs-breadth of actually electing this bozo!
Kind of like Bush’s assumption about how easy it’d be to convince Turkey to let us move troops through ? Oh, my stars and Garters, we were all ready to tie Saddam’s undies in a knot, and now we have to wait two whole weeks to come up with a reality based contingency plan. Churchill never had to put up with this crap. It’s just not FAIR !
The SDMB’s misrepresent-the-anti-war-crowd club has just got a new member. Yay!
You say that you believe that anti-war protestors are less serious about being anti-war than they are about being anti-Bush, yet the first half of your post is little more than an anti-Clinton screed. Couch it in the form of questions all you like, your political prejudices still show through.
For the record, i, like many current anti-war people (i can’t speak for the “hollywood elite and ivory tower liberals” that you lump together indiscriminately) was opposed to Clinton’s bombing of Iraq. I was also, if it will feed your party-political hunger, opposed to the bombing of the Balkans, which was done during Clinton’s presidency. Are you happy now? Have i convinced you that i’m not a paid flack for William Jefferson Clinton and the Democratic National Committee?
It’s interesting that you put forward Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions as being of such key importance in this issue.
Pop quiz: which countries currently hold positions 1 and 2 on the list of UN Security Council violations?
Iraq? No.
North Korea? Try again
What about the third player in the Axis of Evil, Iran? Strike three.
Let’s go to the videotape, shall we Bob? Yes, and the winners are:
-
Israel (currently in violation of 32 resolutions)
-
Turkey (currently in violation of 24 resolutions)
Even Morrocco is only just behind Iraq, with 14.
This website, which is where i got the figures, makes the point:
It also points out:
Did you notice anything about the two top violators of UN Security Council resolutions? Any interesting coinncidence? Yes, that’s right, they’re two of America’s most ardent regional supporters. US government friendliness towards Israel is no secret, and just a couple of weeks ago George W. Bush made it clear how seriously he takes Turkey’s violations of Security Council resolutions:
Good to see him standing up for the principle that violating UN resolutions is unacceptable.
I don’t say that Clinton was any better in this regard - i don’t think he was - but if you’re going to trot out Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions in your ranting against anti-war people, at least arm yourself with some of the relevant information take a consistent position on the issue.
And finally, even if anti-war protestors are opposed to Bush himself, there are many reasons for that, not least of which is the belief, held by many, that the main purpose being served by this push for war is to shift attention away from pressing domestic economic and social issues that desperately need addressing. Bush’s “feed the rich” tax cut has raised barely a whimper among a media that is far too concerned with the “Showdown with Saddam” (to quote a local affiliate’s tagline). The continued violation of civil liberties at home is constantly overshadowed by further US calls for war. And the government’s attempt to role back Roe vs. Wade (de facto if not de jure) rates nary a mention when evil countries like France make headlines for daring to oppose US edicts. So, if there’s a party political aspect to all this, it’s because there should be.